Religious NGOs in International Relations: The construction of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ 9781138856356, 9781315713786

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Acknowledgements
1 Looking into the black box of religiously affiliated organizations
1.1 Systematic focus on transnational religiously affiliated organizations
1.2 Empirical focus on RNGOs in the context of the UN
1.3 Main argument: trend towards Civil Society Activism
2 Resurgence debates, revisited
2.1 Manifold concepts of a resurgence of religions
2.3 On the analytical basis of the ‘secularization paradigm’
2.4 Religious Non-governmental Organizations in the context of the UN
3 Methodical and methodological layout of the analyses
3.1 Development of the research process
3.2 Sociology of knowledge approach to discourse
3.3 Construction of the corpus of data and analysis of data
3.4 Analysis of the data
4 Religions and human rights in the context of the UN
4.1 The context of the United Nations organization (UN)
4.2 Human rights in the context of the UN
4.3 Religions in the context of the UN
4.4 Accredited RNGOs in the context of the UN
5 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA)
5.1 Foundation of the commission – churches in world order (1946–1948)
5.2 Between UN and WCC – expanding religious freedom (1948–1955)
5.3 Enforced legitimation – search for an ecumenical contribution (1955–1965)
5.4 A new generation – mainstreaming human rights (1965–1974)
5.5 Summary: from diplomats of the churches to proponents of human rights
6 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)
6.1 A worldwide lay organization – vanguard for peace (1946–1950)
6.2 Profiling in a multi-polar context – Roman Catholic human rights (1951–1964)
6.3 Integration in the NGO community – liberation and human rights (1965–1977)
6.4 From proponents of a lay vanguard to human rights activist
7 Worldwide trend towards activism
7.1 Bringing the case analyses together
7.2 Comparing to a wider context
7.3 A worldwide trend towards activism
8 A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates
8.1 Trends inside religiously affiliated organizations
8.2 Understanding of resurgence debates
8.3 A new perspective for the analysis of present-day religions
8.4 Perspectives on future research
9 Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Religious NGOs in International Relations

Over the last 30 years, Non-­governmental Organizations (NGOs) have become increasingly present in international discourses and active in international decision-­making. Among the estimated several million NGOs in existence today, an increasingly visible number of organizations are defining themselves in religious terms – referring to themselves as ‘religious’, ‘spiritual’, or ‘faith-­based’ NGOs. This book documents the initial encounters between the particularly international segment of those organizations and the UN, while at the same time covering the Protestant and Catholic spectrum that dominated the early years of their activities in the UN-­context. This book focuses on the construction of the human rights discourse inside two religiously affiliated organizations: the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) and Pax Romana (IMCS/ICMICA). These organizations have been formally accredited as NGOs by the UN, label themselves as religious, and look back upon a long and intense cooperation with the UN. Lehmann presents material from the archives of those two organizations that has so far rarely been used for academic analysis. In doing so, as well as documenting the encounters between those organizations and the UN, and looking at the Protestant and Catholic spectrum, the book provides new insights into the very construction of the notions of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ inside those organizations. This work will be of great interest to all students of religion and international relations, and will also be of interest to those studying related subjects such as global institutions, comparative politics and international politics. Karsten Lehmann is a scholar of the Academic Study of Religions as well as Sociology of Religions. He currently works as Head of Social Sciences and Statistics at the International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue in Vienna, Austria.

This book approaches absolutely key themes, such as the supposed privatization of religion and its ‘resurgence’ (or greater visibility) of recent years. Dealing with religious NGOs in relation to the UN, Lehmann focuses on the absorption of human rights discourses, originally regarded as secular, by two key NGOs – Pax Romana and the World Council of Churches. This provides fascinating and empirically-based new insights into some of the most central discussions in the study of religions. David Martin, Professor Emeritus, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK From a completely new angle, the present book helps to better understand the public role of religions in international politics, and will add significantly to the study of religions as well as international relations. Lehmann approaches these themes by focusing on two developments: one is the impact accredited religious organizations have on the politics of the UN. But even more significantly, Lehmann focuses on the flip side of these processes: the impact the activities of these RNGOs have on the religious communities they represent. Along those lines, the book helps to better understand in which ways globalization has changed the core institutions and functions of the Nation-State, and to what extent public services – such as education, medical care, welfare, and even security – are transferred to religiously affiliated actors. Hans G. Kippenberg, Professor Emeritus, Bremen University, Germany Lehmann’s intriguing book is based on years of thoroughly conducted empirical research. Studying thousands of documents in different archives around the world allows him to reconstruct pivotal communication processes behind the front stage of international politics and religion between the 1940s and the 1970s. By digging deep into areas mostly hidden behind the public scenes of debates on religious freedom, his fascinating book uncovers the backstage of what is referred to as the ‘return of religion’ to the public sphere. Undoubtedly, this book is a must for any scholars seriously interested in contemporary religion and the changes it has undergone over the past few decades. Bernt Schnettler, Professor, Bayreuth University, Germany This book brings a rare and enlightening historical perspective to the question of religious NGOs at the UN and in the process repositions our understanding of some of the most complex debates around the question of the religious-secular and the resurgence of religion. Its achievement is greater for the way it bridges different methodologies across the social sciences and humanities and incisively takes studies of transnational religious actors to a new critical understanding. This book will be a milestone in the fascinating new examination of religious NGOs at the United Nations, not least for the way it unravels and makes us rethink the dynamics of how religious groups adjust and respond to a changing political world. Jeremy Carrette, Professor, University of Kent, UK The book Religious NGOs in International Relations offers an important historical and sociological contribution to understanding better both the role of two early Protestant and Catholic Religious NGOs in relation to the development of human rights discourse within the early years of the UN as well as the significance of the analysis of these organizations for nuancing the debate about the so-called ‘resurgence’ of religions in the public space – in particular in terms of the complex constructions of the interdependent notions of the ‘religious’ and the ‘secular’ over the last few decades. Patrice Brodeur, Professor, Université de Montréal, Canada

Routledge Studies in Religion and Politics Edited by Jeffrey Haynes London Metropolitan University, UK

This series aims to publish high quality works on the topic of the resurgence of political forms of religion in both national and international contexts. This trend has been especially noticeable in the post-­Cold War era (that is, since the late 1980s). It has affected all the ‘world religions’ (including, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism) in various parts of the world (such as, the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and sub-­Saharan Africa). The series welcomes books that use a variety of approaches to the subject, drawing on scholarship from political science, international relations, security studies, and contemporary history. Books in the series explore these religions, regions and topics both within and beyond the conventional domain of ‘Church–state’ relations to include the impact of religion on politics, conflict and development, including the late Samuel Huntington’s controversial – yet influential – thesis about ‘clashing civilisations’. In sum, the overall purpose of the book series is to provide a comprehensive survey of what is currently happening in relation to the interaction of religion and politics, both domestically and internationally, in relation to a variety of issues. Politics and the Religious Imagination Edited by John Dyck, Paul Rowe and Jens Zimmermann Christianity and Party Politics Keeping the faith Martin H. M. Steven Religion, Politics and International Relations Selected essays Jeffrey Haynes

Religion and Democracy A worldwide comparison Carsten Anckar Religious Actors in the Public Sphere Means, objects and effects Edited by Jeffrey Haynes and Anja Hennig Politics and Religion in the United Kingdom Steve Bruce

Politics, Religion and Gender Framing and regulating the veil Edited by Sigelinde Rosenberger and Birgit Sauer Representing Religion in the European Union Does God matter? Edited by Lucian N. Leustean An Introduction to Religion and Politics Theory and practice Jonathan Fox Religion in International Relations Theory Concepts, tools, debates Johnathan Fox and Nukhet Sandal Religion in the Context of Globalization Essays on concept, form, and political implication Peter Beyer Religion and the Realist Tradition From political theology to International Relations theory and back Jodok Troy

Cosmopolitanism, Religion and the Public Sphere Maria Rovisco and Sebastian Kim Religion, Identity and Human Security Giorgio Shani Christians and the Middle East Conflict Edited by John Rowe, John Dyck and Jens Zimmerman Conservative Religious Politics in Russia and the United States Dreaming of a Christian nation John Anderson European Culture Wars and the Italian Case Which Side are you on? Luca Ozzano and Alberta Giorgi God and the EU Faith in the European Project Jonathan Chaplin and Gary Wilton Religious NGOs in International Relations The Construction of ‘the Religious’ and ‘the Secular’ Karsten Lehmann

Religious NGOs in International Relations

The construction of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ Karsten Lehmann

First published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2016 Karsten Lehmann The right of Karsten Lehmann to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-85635-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-71378-6 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear

Contents



Acknowledgements

1

Looking into the black box of religiously affiliated organizations 1.1 Systematic focus on transnational religiously affiliated organizations  3 1.2 Empirical focus on RNGOs in the context of the UN  8 1.3 Main argument: trend towards Civil Society Activism  11

2

Resurgence debates, revisited 2.1 Manifold concepts of a resurgence of religions  20 2.3 On the analytical basis of the ‘secularization paradigm’  26 2.4 Religious Non-­governmental Organizations in the context of the UN  33

19

3

Methodical and methodological layout of the analyses 3.1 Development of the research process  46 3.2 Sociology of knowledge approach to discourse  48 3.3 Construction of the corpus of data and analysis of data  50 3.4 Analysis of the data  52

45

4

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN 4.1 The context of the United Nations organization (UN)  59 4.2 Human rights in the context of the UN  63 4.3 Religions in the context of the UN  67 4.4 Accredited RNGOs in the context of the UN  70

59

5

Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) 5.1 Foundation of the commission – churches in world order (1946–1948)  82

80

ix

1

viii   Contents 5.2 Between UN and WCC – expanding religious freedom (1948–1955)  89 5.3 Enforced legitimation – search for an ecumenical contribution (1955–1965)  96 5.4 A new generation – mainstreaming human rights (1965–1974)  104 5.5 Summary: from diplomats of the churches to proponents of human rights  114 6

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) 6.1 A worldwide lay organization – vanguard for peace (1946–1950)  122 6.2 Profiling in a multi-­polar context – Roman Catholic human rights (1951–1964)  133 6.3 Integration in the NGO community – liberation and human rights (1965–1977)  143 6.4 From proponents of a lay vanguard to human rights activist  151

120

7

Worldwide trend towards activism 7.1 Bringing the case analyses together  163 7.2 Comparing to a wider context  170 7.3 A worldwide trend towards activism  173

163

8

A re-­evaluation of the resurgence debates 8.1 Trends inside religiously affiliated organizations  176 8.2 Understanding of resurgence debates  180 8.3 A new perspective for the analysis of present-­day religions  184 8.4 Perspectives on future research  187

175

9

Bibliography

192



Index

211

Acknowledgements

Every academic book, especially every empirical analysis, depends upon the support of a number of different people who help the author to collect and/or analyse the data. So, right at the beginning, I want to thank those people. In order to do so, let me start with the official mentors that followed the progress of this study as part of the habilitation process at the Department of Cultural Studies of Bayreuth University: Professor Christoph Bochinger, Professor Günter Kehrer, and Professor Bernt Schnettler. In addition, I want to thank my colleagues from Bayreuth University who have given me constant, constructive feedback (be it at the official colloquia, over a cup of coffee, or at some other places): Professor Ulrich Berner, Professor Georg Kamphausen, Dr Franz Kogelmann, Dr Stefan Kurth, and Professor Monika Schrimpf. This book is not only the result of an ‘intellectual journey’. The writing process also included quite a bit of physical movement from one place to another. Correspondingly, I want to thank all the institutions that welcomed me on the way: Observatoire des Religions en Suisse (Lausanne, Switzerland), Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs (Washington, DC), Religious Studies Chair of the University of Fribourg (Fribourg, Switzerland), and the Research Department of the KAICIID – Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue. At all these institutions I had the pleasure of meeting inspiring colleagues, and friends, who supported my work in very different ways: Professor Thomas Banchoff, Professor Pierre-­Yves Brandt, Professor Patrice Brodeur, Professor José Casanova, Géraldine Casutt, MA, Melody Fox Ahmed, MA, Professor Richard Friedli, Professor François Gauthier, Philippe Gilbert, MA, Serina Heinen, MA, Dr Ansgar Joedicke, Gabriella Loser Friedli, Professor Oliver Krüger, Aude-­May Lepasteur, Simon Lepasteur, Barbara Mayer, Kyle Vander Meulen, MA, Dr Christophe Monnot, Professor Eric Patterson, Dr Mallory Schneuwly Purdie, Heike Schwankel, Ricarda Stegmann, MA, Daniela Vaucher-­ Hayoz, Professor Helmut Zander. My warmest thanks to all of you. This being an empirical study, I have also had the great privilege to meet a group of people active in the context of Religious Non-­Governmental Organizations. Unfortunately, I will not be able to mention all of you. Most certainly, it is my wish to thank those people at the archive of ‘my’ cases: Claire Médi and

x   Acknowledgements Julien Simon (Commission of the Churches on International Affairs), Josef Keith (Archivist of Britain Yearly Meeting and the Friends World Committee for ­Consultations/FWCC – even though, this case could not yet systematically be included in the analyses), Jurot Romain (Chef Collections spéciales at the Bibliothèque Cantonale et Universitaire, Fribourg in charge of the Archives of Pax Romana). In addition, I’d like to extend special thanks to Dr David Atwood, Professor Jeremy Carrette, Professor Ben Pink Dandelion, Dr Edouard Dommen, Professor Guillermo Kerber-­Mas, Dr Bernice Martin, Professor David Martin, Canon John Nurser, Mrs Brenda F. Bailey, Dr Leopoldo Niilus, Mr Budi Tjahjono, and Professor Linda Woodhead. All your comments have been most appreciated. Last but certainly not least, this is the place to thank my family, my wife, daughter, mother, and father – to whom I dedicate this book.

1 Looking into the black box of religiously affiliated organizations

Throughout the last two decades, the general label of a global ‘resurgence of religions’ has developed into one of the most central categories of the study of religions. Renowned authors such as Mark Juergensmeyer (Religious Nationalism),1 Samuel P. Huntington (Clash of Civilizations),2 Jürgen Habermas3 (post-­ secular society), or Bassam Tibi (Islamism)4 have been introducing very different notions to make the point that we are presently witnessing a strengthening of religions in public space and an increasing worldwide significance – or at least visibility – of what these authors describe as ‘religious actors’.5 The late sociologist and scholar of religions, Martin Riesebrodt was among the most prolific protagonists of resurgence debates. In one of his last articles he discussed the establishment of ‘fundamentalist movements’ (e.g. the Islamic Revolution in Iran or Sikh Separatism in India) as well as the establishment of ‘activist movements’ (e.g. the role of the Catholic Church in the Polish Solidarnosc), and described these developments as a re-­emergence of religions in public space: Since the late 1970s religion had re-­emerged as a public force, as a marker of ethnic identities, as a shaper of modern subjects and their ways of life. This renewed political importance of religion turned out to be a global phenomenon, occurring in North America, the Middle East, Africa, South and East Asia, as well as Latin America and even Europe where Yugoslavia fell apart along religious lines.6 Taken together, resurgence debates present a threefold agenda. First, they ask for a renewed academic interest in religions – not only as a historic phenomenon but also as a significant aspect of present-­day politics. In doing so, they question – second – one of the most dominant concepts in the Academic Study of Religions, by reconsidering the so-­called ‘secularization paradigm’.7 Finally, resurgence debates are – third – underlining the social significance of phenomena that are explicitly labelled as religious while at the same time being positioned outside what Mark Juergensmeyer describes as ‘the religious mainstream’.8 The following chapter will elaborate upon these debates in more detail. At this point, it should be sufficient to underline that the debates on the resurgence

2   Looking into the black box of religions are characterized by a surprising bias. The protagonists of resurgence debates seem to be more interested in politics and political influence than religions. This becomes most obvious in the works of Huntington and Habermas that have only indirectly contributed to the understanding of the motives and dynamics of religious actors. Like many other protagonists of resurgence debates, these two authors have rather been introducing the concept of the religious actor as a black box9 to understand the specifics of world politics after the breakdown of the USSR or national politics after the 9/11 events of 2001.10 To put this as an oversimplifying paradox: the debates on the resurgence of religions seem to take place without religions. This is exactly where the present book comes in. It will counterbalance this bias by – metaphorically speaking – looking into the black box of what are frequently described as religious actors (the present study prefers the more precise notion of ‘religious affiliations’) that work on a worldwide scale. Focusing on two detailed empirical case analyses (the Commission of Churches on International Affairs/CCIA, the World Council of Churches/WCC and Pax Romana, an international umbrella organization of Roman Catholic student organizations), it intends to learn more about the construction and development of the discourses that form the basis of those actors’ activities. In other words: the book intends to answer the following three fundamental questions: 1 2 3

How far is the so-­called resurgence of religions based upon changes inside a specific group of religiously affiliated organizations that describe themselves as Religious NGOs? To what extent do those internal changes – if there are any – add to the understanding of resurgence debates? In what way do the respective analyses contribute to a better understanding of the analysis of religions?

In answering those questions, the analyses will offer three contributions to the resurgence debate: 1

2

3

They will add a new dimension to the analysis of the so-­called ‘transnational religious actors’. The book will argue that the present-­day activities of religiously affiliated organizations are based upon a shift from ‘Church Diplomacy’ to ‘Civil Society Activism’ that took place in the early 1960s and that this shift can be described as a resurgence of these actors in public space. The book intends to highlight the dialectical character of the processes resurgence debates are dealing with. It is possible to identify tendencies towards resurgence inside religious actors. These trends must not, however, be interpreted in isolation from the respective socio-­cultural context. On this basis, the analyses are put in the position of challenging simplifying etic concepts of the notions of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ that are not able to grasp the complexity of the empirical processes in question. They

Looking into the black box   3 will make the point that the constructions of what is religious or secular are highly dynamic, and that the resurgence of religions rather stands for a new sediment in the construction of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. In order to make this overall argument more accessible, the present introduction is divided into three parts. It will start with explaining the main foci of the analyses – in terms of systematic terminology (section 1.1) and in terms of empirical analyses (section 1.2). On this basis, it will provide a summary of the results of the analyses presented in the book as well as a description of its structure (section 1.3).

1.1  Systematic focus on transnational religiously affiliated organizations Following the general idea of looking into the black box of the religious actor, the present argument has to start with reflections on the socio-­cultural phenomena the concept of the religious actor is referring to. What qualifies a particular actor to be a religious actor? To what extent is it possible to identify particular characteristics of those actors? What is an actor in the first place – as opposed to a group, an organization, or a tradition? In order to answer these questions, it is first of all interesting to see that references to the concept of the religious actor are frequently without a clear-­cut definition. For example, in his introduction to The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, Mark Juergensmeyer uses a variety of different concepts in order to describe religious agency – alongside his core category of the ‘religious nationalist’ he refers to ‘religious activists’, ‘religious leaders’, ‘religious revolutionaries’, and ‘politically active religious leaders’.11 At the same time the expanding literature on the resurgence of religions uses the concept of the religious actor to approach a multitude of very different phenomena: from states such as the Holy See, the United States of America, and Egypt;12 to Muslim aid – and development organizations and Christian civil rights networks;13 up to individuals such as Mahatma Gandhi, Malcolm X, and the Dalai Lama.14 Along these lines, the concept of the religious actor seems to represent first of all a translation of the very idea of a resurgence of religions onto the level of concrete agency. First, it underlines the ways in which religions influence modern societies in general and modern politics in particular. Second, it highlights the multitude of ways this process can take place. In this very broad sense, the concept of the religious actor seems primarily to introduce religions as active forces into the analyses of the political situation, thus rephrasing the central ideas of resurgence debates, rather than adding a new analytical value to the respective discussions. One of the few authors to have extensively worked on a definition of the notion of the religious actor in general and the concept of the transnational religious actor in particular is Jeffrey Haynes. In an article that has meanwhile

4   Looking into the black box developed into a classic in the field, Haynes defines transnational religious actors as, ‘bodies whose main priority is the well-­being and advance of their transnational religious community’.15 This definition highlights four central characteristics that are essential for the understanding of religious actors: First, Haynes focuses upon what is classically described as collective actors. He is interested in social ‘bodies’ as well as their official agendas and not individuals and their beliefs. Second, this concept is based upon self-­description. Haynes does not give any definition of what religion is; he rather introduces ‘religious communities’ as the defining factors that make the difference between religious and non-­religious actors. Third, Haynes highlights a relative detachment between the ‘bodies’ he describes as transnational religious actors and those communities. He does not give a concrete description of the relationship (e.g. in terms of formal representation), but rather talks about a ‘priority’ of ‘well-­being’ and ‘advancement’. Finally, Haynes’ concept of the transnational is not further specified. In his concrete analyses he highlights links to the concept of transnationality put forward by authors such as Ludger Pries.16 In this definition, however, the adjective ‘transnational’ underlines primarily that the activities of religious representatives cross national borders. This concept of the religious actor is most helpful to empirically grasp the phenomena in question. The following analyses will, however, add two specifications: on the one hand, it will be argued that it is not sufficient to define religious actors exclusively via the emic link between specific bodies and communities that describe themselves as religious. The relationship is much more complex and a concept of religious affiliation helps to grasp this complexity more appropriately. On the other hand, the book at hand will underline that religiously affiliated organizations are highly pluralistic – not only with regard to the overall set of these organizations but also with regard to their internal structures. 1.1.1  Concept of the religiously affiliated organization In order to approach the first of the previous two points, it is necessary to start from a set of more general reflections on the concept of religion.17 The question of how to define religion is of course a highly complex one that looks back upon a very long history.18 The present introduction is neither the place to return to this history nor to summarize the multitude of approaches that dominate present-­ day debates on this issue. It should rather be sufficient to underline that the author approaches this question from a tradition that is based upon the so-­called ‘cultural turn’ in Religionswissenschaft, Religious Studies, or the Academic Study of Religions (all these notions will be used in this book interchangeably). In other words, the following analyses are based upon an approach that is primarily associated with a delineation of the concept of religion proposed by scholars such as Gerardus van der Leeuw,19 Mircea Eliade,20 and Friedrich

Looking into the black box   5 Heiler. In the tradition of Clifford Geertz, Jonathan Z. Smith,23 and Russell T. McCutcheon24 as well as Kurt Rudolph,25 Hubert Seiwert,26 and Burkhard Gladigow/Hans G. Kippenberg,27 the present book uses a non-­fideist concept of religion28 that is highly indebted to the so-­called ‘cultural turn’ inside the Academic Study of Religions, and conceptualizes religion as a socio-­cultural phenomenon. Coming from this particular tradition, the analyses start from a definition of religion proposed by the German scholar Burkhard Gladigow.29 In his introductory article to the programmatic five-­volume Handwörterbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe (1988–2001), Gladigow conceptualizes religion as a specific system of symbols: ‘Religion is a system of symbols that is characterised by its bearers with reference to ‘unbezweifelbare, kollektiv verbindliche und autoritativ vorgegebene Prinzipien.’30 21

22

This definition is based upon a specific reading of Clifford Geertz’s 1966 definition of religion,31 that interprets Geertz’s position as a move away from any focus on individual beliefs towards an emphasis on the ‘objective side’ of the cultural system.32 In contrast to those authors that understand Geertz as a proponent of an individualistic approach to religion,33 Gladigow focuses upon systems of symbols in a way that highlights their construction in particular socio-­cultural contexts. In doing so, he questions any sui generis approach to religion by highlighting the socio-­cultural constructedness of religious phenomena. At the same time, Gladigow underlines the empirical interdependencies between those systems. For him, there are no categorical differences between systems of religious symbols and systems of other symbols such as economics, arts, or politics – so that any analysis of religion can be enriched by a comparison with those other systems of symbols.34 With regard to the following analyses, it is helpful to further underline two implicit aspects of this definition: the first of these aspects is the social dimension of the construction of these systems of religious symbols. The present analyses start from the conviction that every analysis of religion has to be specific with regard to the diverse social levels or layers of religion such as face-­to-face interaction (micro-­level), networks, movements, or formally structured organizations (meso-­level), and the manifold discourses on religion (macro-­level). It would be misleading to synthesize these levels; it is rather necessary to highlight their empirical interdependencies by underlining their analytical differences.35 The second aspect is the power dimension. In the tradition of critical discourse analysis, the following considerations see the question of power relations at the centre of any construction of systems of symbols.36 Accordingly, they will underline strategies of inclusion and exclusion, or attempts to voice or silence particular positions in the construction of what is religion. All these considerations have direct consequences for the conceptualization of the notion of the religious actor. First of all, they provide the analyses with a category that goes beyond the mere self-­descriptions of the actors. The reference to Gladigow introduces the notion of the system of religious symbols as an etic category into the analyses that helps to define what they grasp as religion. In

6   Looking into the black box doing so, the proposed concept of religion adds, second, a systematic openness towards the interdependencies between different systems of symbols. Along those lines, it would be misleading to describe religious actors as categorically different from other actors. The construction of their defining systems of religious symbols is always embedded in a wider socio-­cultural context and this has to form the basis of any analysis of religious actors. Finally, the previous terminological reflections are open to different ways in which actors relate to systems of religious symbols. If religion can take many different forms, there are also many different forms to construct the relationship with the systems of religious symbols. Having said all this, the book at hand prefers the concept of ‘religious affiliation’ over the denominator ‘religious’ to describe the actors in question. It follows the Swiss scholar of religions Fritz Stolz, who argued that the adjective ‘religious’ frequently has an essentialist undertone.37 To put this bluntly: the adjective ‘religious’ often seems to ask for the adverb ‘really’. In this respect, a religious actor would be an actor that is of a ‘really different nature’ than other actors. This contradicts the above usage of the concept of religions as socio-­ cultural phenomena that can clearly be defined and are – at the same time – not categorically different from other socio-­cultural phenomena. Along those lines, the concept of religious affiliation helps to avoid an implicit essentialism. It starts from the conviction that every action is based upon a highly complex set of motives as well as situational influences.38 The concept of religious affiliation highlights the existence of diverse forms of affiliation to systems of religious symbols that can materialize in different ways – from direct references to those symbols up to organizational links to organizations that refer to those symbols. The following analyses are based upon the conviction that all of these diverse forms of affiliation have to be taken into consideration in order to adequately analyse the phenomena in question. This is the point where it becomes necessary to underline the second specification that will stand at the centre of the following considerations: the internal plurality of religiously affiliated organizations. 1.1.2  Internal plurality of religiously affiliated organizations Once again, the discussion can start from an observation put forward by Jeffrey Haynes. In his Introduction to International Relations and Religion, Haynes underlines the plurality of transnational religious actors in international relations: The overall point is that there are now numerous religious actors in international relations, with various concerns that go beyond a narrow focus in religious fundamentalism and anti-­modernism. Some encourage cooperation, interreligious dialogue and greater religious engagement around questions of international development and conflict resolution (Banchoff 2005). Others are more concerned with competition, and occasionally conflict, in relation both to other religious traditions and various secular actors.39

Looking into the black box   7 And Haynes is not the only author who has underlined the plurality of the actors in question. Scott Thomas, for example, presents a typology that distinguishes religious actors (in the widest sense) according to their degree of formal organization: • • • •

transnational religion (worldviews, principled beliefs, and causal relationships); epistemic communities (knowledge-­based communities in a global public square); social movements (with an impulse for salvation and the creation of trans-­ national advocacy linkages) and; global civil society.40

The following analyses start from those observations and will go two steps further. Methodologically speaking, they are – first – convinced that religiously affiliated actors cannot be properly analysed without focusing upon the subjectively meaningful behaviour of individuals (in the Weberian sense) as the starting point for the analyses.41 On this basis, they start with the idea that religiously affiliated actors are characterized – second – by very complex internal structures that are formed in constant exchange with their respective socio-­cultural contexts.42 One has to take these exchanges into consideration in order to properly approach the phenomena in question. And both these initial assumptions can directly be linked to an extensive body of empirical analysis. Throughout the last three decades, empirical case studies have repeatedly made the point that even those organizations that are perceived as being dominated by a strong enforcement of one particular reading of their respective system (or systems) of religious symbols exhibit a large degree of internal plurality. Detailed analyses of New Religious Movements came to the conclusion that even the membership of relatively hierarchical organizations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology, or what used to be called the Unification Church differs in terms of individual commitment to religious beliefs or practices, the role of different sets of people inside the respective organizations, and their overall relationship to ‘the world’.43 And there is no reason to believe that this would not be the case with regard to religiously affiliated actors of a transnational scope. As soon as one introduces these observations into the present debates, they provide the following analyses of religiously affiliated actors with a much more differentiated concept of agency and organizational structure. On a very basic level, they underline the internal diversity of those actors, and suggest that the respective dynamics have to form the centre of the analyses. On a more general level, the above considerations propose a dialectical approach to religiously affiliated actors. They suggest (1) that internal differentiation influences the processes of affiliation to systems of religious symbols. On this basis, they argue (2) that these processes have consequences for the respective formation of systems of religious symbols. And finally, they make the point that (3) both processes form the basis of the concrete activities in question.

8   Looking into the black box These processes will stand at the centre of the following analyses. In order to look into the black box of religiously affiliated actors, the analyses will focus upon the manifold ways in which systems of religious symbols are constructed inside those actors. They question to what extent these systems form the basis of processes that can be described as resurgence; and how far these processes influence the construction of systems of religious symbols. In answering these questions, the following analyses will to emphasize the internal processes that form the basis of the social construction of these systems of symbols as well as the social embeddedness of the developments in question. In this way, the analyses intend to add a genuine contribution to the question of a worldwide resurgence of religion. To translate these general considerations into a concrete empirical research design, the present book focuses on a specific group of transnational actors with religious affiliation – the so-­called Religious Non-­governmental Organizations/ RNGOs in the context of the United Nations Organization/UN.

1.2  Empirical focus on RNGOs in the context of the UN In the present analyses, the concept of the Religious Non-­governmental Organizations/RNGOs is primarily refers to a technical term that has its roots in the context of the UN. Since its formation, the UN has been confronted again and again with ‘religion’, whether for example through continuing conflicts in the Middle East, the international engagement of the Holy See, or debates about religious freedom. At the same time, various religiously affiliated organizations and movements, early on, perceived the work of the United Nations (and particularly its Economic and Social Council/ECOSOC) as an important context for their own activities, thus delegating representatives, contributing surveys or formal statements, and participating in the major campaigns of the UN (for example, the Development Decades, the Decades to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, or the Decades for the Eradication of Colonialism).44 These are the actors that are frequently labelled as Religious Non-­governmental Organizations (RNGOs). The following analyses start from this emic concept, and use the notion of the RNGO as soon as the respective organizations comply with two requirements: 1 2

an explicit affiliation with one or more system(s) of religious symbols in the above sense – be it in terms of explicit references to religious symbols or by formal links to organizations that refer to such symbols, and a successful application for the formal status of a Non-­governmental Organization/NGO with the Economic and Social Council/ECOSOC of the UN (based upon Article 71 of the UN Charter).

In order to look into the black box of those organizations, the analyses will introduce a twofold specification: (1) They follow a case-­studies approach, and focus on two RNGOs in order to produce sufficiently differentiated analyses, and

Looking into the black box   9 (2) the book focuses on the construction of two distinct discourses inside those cases: the discourse on the UN and the discourse on human rights. 1.2.1  Two cases – Pax Romana and the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs The case-­study approach pursued by the following analyses is informed by the qualitative school of social research.45 In accordance with the general conviction of any case analysis, the author presupposes that the in-­depth analysis of a specific case provides a basis to formulate more general hypotheses.46 Along those lines, the book at hand will focus on two specific cases – the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) of the World Council of Churches, as well as Pax Romana (IMCS/ICMICA). • •

The CCIA was founded in 1946 as a formal commission to represent the World Council of Churches/WCC (at this point in time still in the process of formation) before the UN.47 Pax Romana (IMCS – ICMICA) was founded in 1921 as an international lay movement of Catholic Students and later developed into one of the first Roman Catholic organizations that successfully applied for NGO status with the UN.48

The choice of these two cases is based upon a threefold rationale:49 first of all, Pax Romana and the CCIA were among the first organizations to successfully apply for consultative status with the UN. In this sense, they provide insights into the very establishment of the particular socio-­cultural setting that is constituted by RNGO activities within the UN. To put this differently: the choice of these two cases follows the rationale that it is helpful to analyse the establishing phase of a particular socio-­cultural phenomenon, in order to properly understand its dynamics. In this sense, the CCIA and Pax Romana are ideal cases to learn more about the global resurgence of religions by analysing the establishment of RNGOs in the context of the UN. Second, Pax Romana and the CCIA stand for two major strands of Christianity (Pax Romana as a Roman Catholic lay organization and the CCIA representing one of the major Protestant-­dominated umbrella organizations). In this respect, the choice of these two cases reflects the empirical observation that Christian organizations were dominating the initial phase of RNGO establishment inside the context of the UN. In the face of this situation, the present analysis had to take a decision either in favour of wider diversity of the cases (including e.g. Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist organizations) or in favour of a more concise comparability (e.g. with regard to time frames or socio-­cultural contexts). In favour of a methodologically sound comparison, it opted for formal comparability at the expense of religious diversity. Finally, there was also a very practical reason for choosing these two cases. The CCIA as well as Pax Romana were willing and able to open their archives

10   Looking into the black box for an in-­depth analysis, thus providing an indispensable prerequisite for answering the central questions of the present study. Not all the early RNGOs were able to fulfil this very practical requirement. Actually, the author contacted a number of RNGOs that fit the above criteria but were not in the position to provide the author with the necessary data – be it on the basis of missing infrastructure, formal policies, or questions of confidentiality.50 In a nutshell: the empirical analysis of Pax Romana and the CCIA provides a basis to approach a particular subset of religiously affiliated organizations that developed into major actors in the context of the UN, thus adding an interesting perspective to resurgence debates. In order to do so, the analyses will be based upon archive material from the 1940s to the 1970s that helps to open a detailed look at the activities inside the cases. These processes are, however, so multidimensional that the analyses had to introduce an additional focus. In this respect, the author decided to emphasize the construction of two specific discourses inside these organizations. 1.2.2  Two discourses – the construction of the UN and human rights In order to understand this additional restriction, it is helpful to start with an empirical observation: as far as the time period from the 1940s up to the 1970s is concerned, modern archives tend to provide researchers with very dense material.51 In the case of the WCC and Pax Romana, we are literally talking about kilometres of empirical data that were accessible in the archives – including published books as well as informal letters, and even some photos and films. And this is not even taking the personal archives of some of the protagonists inside the cases or parallel records in other archives into consideration, which might add further material to the analyses. Under these conditions a researcher has a number of options in order to systematically reduce the material to an amount that can be handled in a single research project. In an ideal world it would, of course, be possible to extend the woman/man hours devoted to the analyses. This not being the case, another option is to reduce the time frame of the analyses and to focus upon specific years. It is also possible to opt for a comparison of particular episodes (e.g. two conferences and their organization) or to stick to a particular type of data (e.g. only published material).52 All these options would, however, reduce the scope of the analyses in such a way that they would no longer provide sufficient data to answer the central questions of the present analyses. Confronted with those different options, the author decided to focus on specific discourses he perceived as particularly interesting with regard to the research questions – the construction of the UN (United Nations) – and human rights-­related discourses inside the wider context of Pax Romana and the CCIA. To put this more generally, the analyses focus – first – on the way in which the protagonists inside the two cases construct the very socio-­cultural setting they are working in. Second, the analyses deal with the construction of a specific issue that was – at least during the 1940s and 1950s – directly associated with

Looking into the black box   11 the UN in general and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights/UDHR in particular. And all of this is – third – based upon a notion of discourse proposed by the German sociologist Reiner Keller who perceives discourses: ‘as performative statement practices which constitute reality orders and also produce power effects in a conflict-­ridden network of social actors, institutional dispositifs, and knowledge systems’.53 This particular focus translates the general interest of the project into an empirical research programme. On the one hand, the analyses focus in both cases on discourses that were central for the establishment of the RNGOs in the context of the UN. On the other hand, the focus on these particular discourses is in accordance with the concrete concept of religion that forms the basis of the present publication. By focusing on the UN- and human rights-­related discourses inside specific religiously affiliated organizations, the book at hand thus underlines a specific dimension of the social construction of systems of religious symbols inside those actors. Hopefully, the next chapters will make it clear that this general approach is a particularly fruitful one. The next section intends, at least, to present an initial summary of the results that will be spelled out in much more detail throughout the book.

1.3  Main argument: trend towards Civil Society Activism In order to sum up the central results that will be presented in this volume, it is helpful to follow a two-­step approach: First, the following paragraphs will highlight four basic observations that form the centre of the case analyses. On this basis, the following section will – second – underline some of the theoretical consequences of these observations for resurgence debates. 1.3.1  Four basic observations As far as the case analyses are concerned, their main results are based upon a very basic observation: the case analyses underline that the activities of the RNGOs inside the UN-­context started out from a very specific perception of the UN. Initially, the RNGO commitment to the UN was based upon the perception of this organization as a significant secular context the RNGO protagonists wanted to commit the activities of their respective organization to. In the mid1940s, the central figures inside Pax Romana and the CCIA interpreted the early activities of the UN, as well as contemporary human rights debates, as matters of worldwide significance that ‘religion’ had to deal with (as opposed to being part of ). Initially, this formed the base of all activities inside this context. This particular approach to the UN triggered – second – complex developments at the level of discourses as well as organizational structures: as far as the organizational structures were concerned, the cases saw at first the establishment of a set of individual experts that started out by dealing almost exclusively with

12   Looking into the black box the UN. Later on, the decision makers inside the cases began to establish new organizational structures (be it official commissions, informal networks, or the positions of single representatives) that integrated the UN-­related activities into the WCC and Pax Romana. On the level of discourses, these processes were accompanied by a shift in the construction of what was perceived as religious and secular inside the cases. References to the UN and human rights – primarily perceived as secular – became more and more a self-­defining aspect of the cases in general. To put this differently: the very understanding of what is ‘secular’ changed dramatically inside the cases. At the same time, however, the concrete developments of the two cases show – third – to what extent these changes were dependent upon the systems of religious symbols the RNGOs were affiliated with. In the case of Pax Romana, the activities were very much influenced by three aspects: first, the peace discourse established during World War II, second, the self-­understanding of Pax Romana as a Roman-­Catholic lay-­vanguard in the world, and third the changes connected to the Second Vatican Council. As far as the CCIA is concerned, the UN-­related activities started from the self-­description of the WCC as a centre of worldwide Christendom, and were structured by the overall changes of the power relations inside the WCC in general and the CCIA in particular. In other words, coming from different directions and constructing their own role inside the UN-­context in very different ways, the protagonists of UN-­related activities in the two cases contributed to significant changes in the constructions of the discourses on the UN and human rights. And finally – fourth – all these developments can be interpreted along the lines of the notion of ‘unintended consequence’. In both cases, the early commitment to the UN formed the basis for further changes its protagonists did not at all foresee – let alone intend. Inside the CCIA, these changes even acquired an almost tragic component. Those people that introduced the very concept of human rights during the 1940s were the ones that became most criticized during the 1960s for its inadequate use. As far as Pax Romana was concerned, the UN-­ related processes were subject to fundamental shifts inside the power structure of the whole set-­up of the Roman Catholic Church. Quite comparable to the CCIA, this finally triggered a decrease of the influence of the early protagonists for the benefit of a new set of activists inside Pax Romana. These four observations are the result of a broad description of the developments inside the four cases based upon analysis of the archive materials. Taken together, they can be interpreted in a way that leads directly back to the question of the resurgence debate. 1.3.2  Consequences for the resurgence debates In a nutshell, the results of the case analyses propose an intermediate position with regard to the resurgence debates that is based upon a dialectical understanding of the processes in question. On the one hand, they suggest that it is possible to link the idea of a resurgence of religion to developments that took place inside

Looking into the black box   13 religiously affiliated actors – or at least those actors that the present analyses are dealing with. On the other hand, the case analyses make the point that the concept of resurgence that dominates the present debates is not sufficiently differentiated to grasp the processes in question – especially vis-­à-vis the idea of secularization that is at the centre of resurgence debates. To put this in a less abstract way: the reconstruction of the UN- and human rights-­related discourses inside the two cases shows to what extent these RNGOs have undergone changes that triggered a development towards a specific form of Civil Society Activism. On the one hand, these changes can be interpreted as a resurgence of religion, in as far as the late 1950s and early 1960s have seen a fundamental internal repositioning of Pax Romana and the CCIA in terms of discourses as well as in terms of structure. On the other hand, this particular reading confronts the resurgence debates with a twofold challenge. First, the case analyses propose that this type of resurgence must not be equalled with an increasing influence of religion on political decision makers. The detailed reconstruction of the dynamic changes inside Pax Romana and the CCIA will show that the developments of the 1960s and 1970s coincided with an increasing link to civil society. This newly emerging focus on a more public approach to politics coincides, however, with a more indirect way of influencing politics. While the RNGO representative of the 1940s and 1950s had direct access to central political decision makers, this was no longer (or at least to a much lesser degree) the case during the 1960s and 1970s. Second, the book at hand will argue that these developments cannot properly be understood on the basis of a simplistic, binary opposition between ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. This becomes most obvious with regard to the human rights-­related discourse. The shift from a purely secular external construction of human rights towards an increasing integration of human rights into the central system of religious symbols of the religiously affiliated organizations stands for the addition of what the present analyses tend to describe as a new sediment in the construction of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. This last point leads right into the central aspect of the present analyses. Based upon the above considerations, the book at hand argues for a re-­ configuration of central categories in the Academic Study of Religions. Traditionally speaking, the developments of the RNGOs can be interpreted in only two ways – either as an increasing secularization of the respective organizations or as an increasing sacralization of the discourses on the UN and human rights inside these organizations. The present analyses suggest that these categories are not sufficient. The construction of what is religious or secular is much more complex. Therefore they will introduce the concept of ‘the sediment’ that provides a terminology that makes it possible to analytically grasp the historical constructedness as well as the dynamic changes of those categories. The following analyses will show to what an extent specific socio-­cultural phenomena can be constructed as being ‘religious’ and ‘secular’. They confront any idea of an implicit essentialism. The constructedness of what is ‘religious’ or ‘secular’ can be seen as historical sediments that lie one upon the other

14   Looking into the black box without necessarily dissolving in the process. In some cases, religious and secular sediments are central for the very understanding of those phenomena – for example in the case of human rights and – to a lesser degree – also the construction of the UN. In order to present this argument, the analyses follow a threefold structure. 1.3.3  Structure of the book Formally speaking, the rest of the book can be divided into three main sections. The first section will provide the theoretical and methodical basis for the empirical analyses. The introduction is followed by chapters on theoretical foundations as well as a chapter on the methodological layout of the analyses that will focus on a particular reading of secularization theory as well as an explanation how discourse analyses were applied to the data collected in the archives of Pax Romana and the CCIA. Against this background, the second section is dedicated to the case analyses. The fourth chapter will provide background information on the dynamics of the whole setting of RNGOs in the context of the UN that is needed to analyse the two cases. The proximate two chapters form the very centre of the book – focusing on the development of UN- and human rights-­related discourses inside the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (Chapter 5), and, second, the respective discourses inside the Roman Catholic umbrella organization Pax Romana (Chapter 6). Using the results of the two case analyses, the final section will come back to the wider context set forth in the introductory chapters – first by a first-­order comparison of the two cases and then by a second-­order comparison of the results of the case comparison with the overall developments of similar organizations inside the UN context. This will finally form the basis for an eighth chapter that will present the contributions of those comparisons to a reassessment of the present-­day debates on the resurgence of religion.

Notes 1 Juergensmeyer, Mark, The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism confronts the Secular State, Berkley/Los Angeles 1993.   2 Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York/London/Toronto 1996.   3 Habermas, Jürgen, Glauben und Wissen, Frankfurt am Main 2001.   4 Tibi, Bassam, Islamism and Islam, New Haven/London 2012.   5 On the basis of citation indices, Thomas Plümper argues that Samuel Huntington’s hypothesis of the Clash of Civilizations is part of the ‘top ten’ most frequently discussed recent concepts in the social sciences. According to James Bohman and William Rehg, Jürgen Habermas – who has been instrumental in introducing the concept of the post-­secular society – currently ranks among the most influential philosophers in the world (Plümper, Thomas, ‘Academic Heavy-­weights – The “Relevance” of Political Science Journals’, in European Political Science 6 (2007), pp. 41–50, here: p. 41; Bohman, James et al., in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford

Looking into the black box   15 Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/ fall2014/entries/habermas/).   6 Riesebrodt, Martin, Religion in the Modern World: Between Secularization and Resurgence, San Domenico di Fiesole 2014, p. 2 (Max Weber Lectures Series at the European University Institute).   7 Tschannen, Oliver, ‘The Secularization Paradigm – A Systematization’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30 (1991), pp. 395–415.   8 Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God – The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Berkley/Los Angeles/London 2003, pp. 221–228.   9 John H. Goldthorpe describes the black box-­concept as a particular kind of methodical reasoning, arguing that: ‘we know the inputs to the analysis and we know the outputs from it, but we do not know much about why [. . .], the one is transformed into the other’ (Goldthorpe, John H., On Sociology – Volume One: Critique and Program, 2nd edn, Oxford 2007 p. 53). 10 Casanova, José, ‘From Modernization to Secularization to Globalization – An Autobiographical Self-­Reflection’, in Coleman, Simon and Sarré, Ramon (eds), Religion and Society – Volume 2: Advances in Research, New York 2011, pp. 25–36; Martin, Bernice, ‘Contrasting Modernities: “Postsecular” Europe and Enspirited Latin America’, in Molendijk, Arie L. et al. (eds), Exploring the Postsecular: The Religious, The Political and The Urban, Leiden and Boston 2010, pp. 25–32. 11 Juergensmeyer, Mark, The New Cold War?, pp. 1–8. 12 Inboden, William, Religion and Amer­ican Foreign Policy 1945–1960: The Soul of Containment, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 2008; Araujo, Robert John and Lucal, John A., Papal Diplomacy and the Quest for Peace – The United Nations from Pius XII to Paul VI, Philadelphia 2010; Mörschel, Tobias (ed.), Papsttum und Politik – Eine Institution zwischen geistlicher Macht und politischer Gewalt, Freiburg/Basel/ Wien 2007. 13 Dark, Ken R. (ed.), Religion and International Relations, Houndmills/Basingstoke 2000; Buss, Doris and Herman, Didi, Globalizing Family Values – The Christian Right in International Politics, Minneapolis/London 2003; Clarke, Gerard and Jennings, Michael (eds), Development, Civil Society and Faith-­Based Organizations – Bridging the Sacred and the Secular, London 2008; Benthall, Jonathan and Bellion-­Jourdan, Jérôme, Charitable Crescent – Politics of Aid in the Muslim World, London/New York 2003; Ghandour, Abdel-­Rahman, Jihad Humanitaire – Enquête sur les ONG Islamique, Paris 2002. 14 Riaz, Ali (ed.), Religion and Politics in South Asia, London/New York 2010; Little, David (ed.), Peacemakers in Action – Profiles of Religion in Conflict Resolution, Cambridge/New York/Melborne 2007. 15 Haynes, Jeffrey, ‘Transnational Religious Actors and International Politics’, Third World Quarterly, 22 (2001), pp. 143–158, here: p. 143. In a more recent publication, Haynes adds more detail to this definition: ‘representatives of or individuals belonging to a community or organization which is overtly informed by religious references’ (Haynes, Jeffrey and Henning, Anja, ‘Introduction’, in Haynes, Jeffrey and Henning, Anja (eds), Religious Actors in the Public Sphere – Means, Objectives and Effects, Milton Park/New York 2011, pp.  1–13, here: p.  1). In addition, see Shani, Giorgio, ‘Transnational Religious Actors in International Relations’, in Haynes, Jeffrey (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics, Milton Park/New York 2009, pp. 308–321; Toft, Monica D. et al., God’s Century – Resurgent Religion and Global Politics, New York/London 2011, p. 23. 16 Pries, Ludger (ed.), New Transnational Social Spaces – International Migration and Transnational Companies in the Early Twenty-­first Century, Milton Park/New York 2001. 17 Due to the fact that this is the first time the author uses the concept of ‘religion’ (in the singular), this is the place for a general terminological clarification. The present

16   Looking into the black box analyses tend to use the plural ‘religions’ in order to describe the empirical subject matter (or rather matters), they are dealing with. The following section will, however, underline that the author is still convinced that the abstract noun ‘religion’ is of analytical relevance. In these cases, the concept of ‘religion’ will be used in the singular. 18 Most recently: Schlieter, Jens, ‘Einleitung’, in Schlieter, Jens (ed.), Was ist Religion? – Texte von Cicero bis Luhmann, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 9–27. 19 Leeuw, Gerardus van der, Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Religion, 2nd edn, Darmstadt 1961. 20 Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane – The Nature of Religion, Houghton 1959. 21 Heiler, Friedrich (ed.), Die Religionen der Menschheit in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Stuttgart 1959. 22 Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures, New York 1973. 23 Smith, Jonathan Z., Imagining Religion – From Babylon to Jonestown, Chicago/ London 1982. 24 McCutcheon, Russell T., Manufacturing Religion – The Discourse on sui generis Religion and Politics of Nostalgia, Oxford 1997. 25 Rudolph, Kurt, ‘Das Problem der Autonomie und Integrität der Religionswissenschaft’, in Kurt Rudolph (ed.), Geschichte und Probleme der Religionswissenschaft, Leiden/New York/Köln 1992, pp. 37–66. 26 Seiwert, Hubert, ‘Religionswissenschaft – Theoriebildung und Empiriebezug’, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 61 (1977), pp. 1–18. 27 Gladigow, Burkhard and Kippenberg, Hans G. (eds) Neue Ansätze in der Religionswissenschaft, München 1988. 28 Kehrer, Günter, Einführung in die Religionssoziologie, Darmstadt 1988, here: pp.  13–27 (Die Theologie); Rüpke, Jörg, Historische Religionswissenschaft – Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2007; Auffarth, Christoph, et al. (eds), Wörterbuch der Religionen, Baden-­Baden 2007; Taylor, Mark C. (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago/London 1998. 29 In doing so, the following contributions want to counteract what Gustavo Benavides calls the dominant ‘monolingualism’ of the North Amer­ican Study of Religions: It may be pointed out in this context, that acquaintance with scholarly work produced in languages other than English has all but disappeared among a sizable number of North Amer­ican academics in the field of religion. This is particularly troubling in the case of theory and meta-­theory, as some of the most important work in these areas is carried out in languages other than English, especially in German. (Benavides, Gustavo, ‘North America’, in Alles, Gregory D. (ed.), Religious Studies – A Global View, London/New York, pp. 242–268, here: p. 245) 30 ‘indubitable, collectively binding, and authoritatively given principles’ (translation by K. Lehmann), Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Gegenstände und wissenschaftlicher Kontext von Religionswissenschaft’, in Cancik, Hubert, et al. (eds), Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, Bd. 1 Stuttgart 1988, pp. 26–40, here: p. 34f. 31 Geertz, Clifford, ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, in Banton, Michael (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London 1966, pp. 1–46, here: p. 4. 32 This point is made explicit throughout the volume: Gladigow, Burkhard, Religionswissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft, Stuttgart 2005. 33 See, for example, Frankenberry, Nancy, K. and Penner, Hans, H., ‘Clifford Geertz’s Long-­lasting Moods, Motivations, and Metaphysical Conceptions’, Journal of Religion 79 (1999), pp. 617–640. 34 Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Macht und Religion – Formen der Herrschaftslegitimierung in den antiken Religionen’, Humanistische Bildung 1 (1977), pp. 1–31; Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Kraft, Macht, Herrschaft – Zur Religionsgeschichte politischer Begriffe’, in

Looking into the black box   17 Gladigow, Burkhard (ed.) Staat und Religion, Düsseldorf 1981, pp.  7–22. See also, Luchesi, Brigitte and Stuckrad, Kocku von (ed), Religion im kulturellen Diskurs – Festschrift für Hans G. Kippenberg zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2004; Berner, Ulrich, ‘The Concept of ‘Syncretism’ – An Instrument of Historical Insight/Discovery?’, in Leopold, Anita M. and Jensen, Jeppe S. (eds), Syncretism in Religion – A Reader, London 2004, pp. 295–315; Berner, Ulrich, Untersuchungen zur Verwendung des Synkretismus-­Begriffes, Wiesbaden 1982. 35 Lehmann, Karsten and Jödicke, Ansgar (eds), Einheit und Differenz in der Religionswissenschaft – Zu einem Mehr-­Ebenen Modell von Religion, Würzburg in print; Kippenberg, Hans G., et al. (eds), Europäische Religionsgeschichte, Stuttgart 2009; Auffarth, Christoph, et al. (eds), Wörterbuch der Religionen, Stuttgart 2006. 36 Jäger, Siegfried, Kritische Diskursanalyse – Eine Einführung, 6th edn, Münster 2012. Fairclough, Norman, Language and Power, 3rd edn, London 2014. 37 Stolz, Fritz, Religion und Rekonstruktion – Ausgewählte Aufsätze herausgegeben von Daria Pezzoli-­Olgiati, Göttingen 2004, especially pp. 62–83. 38 Kippenberg, Hans G. and Stuckrad, Kocku von, Einführung in die Religionswissenschaft, München 2003. 39 Haynes, Jeffrey, Introduction to International Relations and Religion, Harlow/ London/New York 2007, p. 33. 40 Thomas, Scott M., The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations – The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-­first Century, New York/Houndmills 2005, pp. 105–116. In addition the increasing literature on religion and globalization contributes to these debates. The classic texts are brought together in Beyer, Peter (ed.), Religion im Prozess der Globalisierung, Würzburg 2001. An even more concise selection of texts is contained in part VIII (Cultural Globalization II: The role of Religion) of Lechner, Frank J. and Boli, John (eds), The Globalization Reader, 3rd edn, Malden/Oxford 2008, pp. 343–398. 41 Schnettler, Bernt, ‘Alltag und Religion’, in Weyel, Birgit and Gräb, Wilhelm (eds), Religion in der modernen Lebenswelt – Erscheinungsformen und Reflexionsperspektiven, Göttingen 2006, pp. 84–100; Schnettler, Bernt, ‘Soziologie der Religiösen Erfahrung und Spiritualität’, in Baier, Karl and Sinkovits, Josef (eds), Spiritualität und Moderne Lebenswelt, Wien/Berlin 2007, pp. 45–69. 42 Kehrer, Günter, Organisierte Religion, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln/Mainz 1982; Beckford, James A., Religious Organizations – A Trend Report and Bibliography, Mouton/The Hague/Paris 1975; Clarke, Peter, New Religions in Global Perspective – A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World, London/New York 2006; Chaves Mark, Congregations in America, Cambridge/London 2004; Lüddeckens, Dorothea and Walthert, Rafael (eds), Fluide Religion – Neue religiöse Bewegungen im Wandel theoretischer und empirischer Systematisierung, Bielefeld 2010. 43 Beckford, James A., The Trumpet of Prophecy – A Sociological Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oxford 1975; Wallis, Roy, The Road to Total Freedom – A Sociological Analysis of Scientology, London 1976; Kehrer, Günter (ed.), Das Entstehen einer neuen Religion – das Beispiel der Vereinigungskirche, München 1981; Barker, Eileen, The Making of a Moonie – Choice or Brainwashing?, Oxford 1985; Thompson, Judith and Heelas, Paul, The Way of the Heart – The Rajneesh Movement, Wellingborough 1986; Bromley, David G. (ed.), Krishna Consciousness in the West, Lewisburg 1989; Süss, Joachim, Zur Erleuchtung unterwegs – Neo-­ Sannyasins in Deutschland und ihre Religion, Berlin 1994; Namini, Sussan and Murken, Sebastian, ‘Self-­chosen Involvement in New Religious Movements (NRMs) – Well-­being and Mental Health from a Longitudinal Perspective,’ Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 12 (2009), pp.  561–585; Murken, Sebastian and Namini, Sussan, ‘Psychosoziale Konflikte im Prozess des selbst gewählten Beitritts zu neuen religiösen Gemeinschaften’, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 12 (2004), pp. 141–187.

18   Looking into the black box 44 In past years, two political science introductions have been published: Eric O’Hanson, Religion and Politics in the International System Today, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 2006, and Jeffrey Haynes, An Introduction to International Relations and Religion, London/New York 2007. See also the discussion in Karsten Lehmann, ‘Interdependenzen zwischen Religionsgemeinschaften und internationaler Politik – Religionswissenschaftliche Anmerkungen zu politikwissenschaftlichen Religionskonzeptionen, Zeitschrift für international Beziehungen 17 (2010), pp. 75–99. 45 Seal, Clive (ed.), Researching Society and Culture, 2nd edn, Los Angeles/London/ New Delhi/Singapore 2004; Przyborski, Aglaja and Wohlrab-­Sahr, Monika, Qualitative Sozialforschung, Ein Arbeitsbuch, 3rd edn, München 2010; Lamnek, Siegfried, Qualitative Sozialforschung – Lehrbuch, 5th edn, Weinheim/Basel 2010. 46 Strübing, Jörg and Schnettler, Bernt (eds), Methodologie interpretativer Sozialforschung – Klassische Grundlagentexte, Konstanz 2004. 47 Bent, Ans J. van der, Christian Responses on a World of Chrisis – A Brief History of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Geneva 1986. 48 Altermatt, Urs and Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Pax Romana 1921–1981 – Gründung und Entwicklung, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1981. 49 Seyfarth, Constans, ‘Alltag und Charisma bei Max Weber – Eine Studie zur Grundlegung der “verstehenden” Soziologie’, in Sprondel, Walter and Grathoff, Richard (eds), Alfred Schütz und die Idee des Alltags in den Sozialwissenschaften, Stuttgart 1979, pp. 155–177; Seyfarth, Constans, ‘Über Max Webers Beitrag zur Theorie professionellen beruflichen Handelns, zugleich eine Vorstudie zum Verständnis seiner Soziologie als Praxis’, in Weiß, Johannes (ed.) Max Weber heute. Erträge und Probleme der Forschung, Frankfurt am Main 1989; Kelle, Udo and Kluge, Susann, Vom Einzelfall zum Typus – Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung, Opladen 1999. 50 To name but two examples: Baha’i International Community and World Jewish Congress. 51 Opgenoorth, Ernst and Schulz, Günther, Einführung in das Studium der Neueren Geschichte, 7th edn, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 2010. 52 Brundage, Anthony, Going to the Sources – A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 4th edn, Wheeling 2008; Plassmann, Max, Einführung in die moderne Archivarbeit, Darmstadt 2006. 53 Keller, Reiner, ‘The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse’, Human Studies 24 (2011), pp. 43–65, here: p. 48.

2 Resurgence debates, revisited

As has already been indicated in the Introduction, the present book uses the heuristic potential of the ‘resurgence debates’ for the analysis of those religiously affiliated organizations that are labelled as Religious Non-­governmental Organizations/RNGOs. There are two major reasons that make the resurgence debates an interesting starting-­point for the analysis of this aspect of the more recent history of religions: on the one hand, they put subject matters right into the centre of the analysis of present-­day religions that have so far been frequently neglected (such as the RNGOs). On the other hand, they challenge the so-­called ‘secularization paradigm’ in as far as they raise the question of the overall significance of this type of religious phenomena for today’s societies. Along those lines, the chapter at hand will present a threefold argument: first, it underlines the general potential of the resurgence debates to grasp most recent developments in the history of religions. Referring to increasingly audible voices in the more recent study of religions, it makes the point that the resurgence debates question the dominance of a specific strand of secularization theory. The second part of the present chapter intends, however, to go one step further. It makes the point that there is a need for a fundamental re-­evaluation of the very concepts that the theory or, rather, theories of secularization are based upon. A mere inversion of secularization theories is not sufficient to understand present-­ day religions. Third, the following sections argue that these considerations are only in the position to advance the analysis of religiously affiliated organizations, such as the RNGOs, if they take the heterogeneity of these organizations into consideration. This overall argument translates into a three-­step structure: section 2.1 presents a detailed picture of the resurgence debates that highlights the manifold dimensions of the respective discussions as well as their focus upon a specific reading of secularization theory. The following section will deal with questions related to the terminological basis of theories of secularization, with a particular reference to most recent discussions among scholars of religions in Great Britain that propose the concept of ‘sedimentation’ for the study of present-­day religions (section 2.2). The third section will finally come back to the analysis of the RNGOs and will present a short summary of the state of present research in order to specify the heuristic frame of reference (section 2.3).

20   Resurgence debates, revisited

2.1  Manifold concepts of a resurgence of religions As soon as one has a closer look at the first of the three steps indicated above, two aspects of the resurgence debates immediately spring to mind: on the one hand, it is interesting to see that the resurgence debates gain most of their momentum through their embeddedness in a wide array of general discourses. Throughout the last decade, the notion of the resurgence of religions has become the centre of a general debate on the role of religions that has – in itself – gained social significance. On the other hand, one has to keep in mind that the resurgence debates are based upon a fundamental critique of the concept of secularization. In analytical terms, they gain most of their momentum from the fact that they question one of the most significant concepts in the study of religions. The rest of the present section will elaborate upon this twofold characterization. In order to do so, it is divided into three parts: it begins with a description of the different strands that form the socio-­cultural basis of the resurgence debates. In a second step, it will focus upon the so-­called ‘secularization paradigm’ that is frequently presented as the analytical centre of these manifold discussions. This finally leads towards a summary of the different strands of criticism that reflect upon the limits of the resurgence debates. 2.1.1  Socio-­cultural basis of the resurgence debates Within the last decade, the resurgence debates were dominated by three groups of actors that form the social basis of the respective discourse – political elites, religious officials and experts, and mainstream media. All these groups follow very distinct rationales while shaping the resurgence debates from outside academia. Therefore, it makes sense to start the following considerations with a description of these groups and their take on the idea of a resurgence of religions. As far as the present analyses are concerned, the most interesting of the three groups are the international political elites. Despite a long tradition of explicit secularism in the field of international relations, the last two decades have seen the establishment of ‘religion’ as a major topic in this context.1 In the UN for example, the declaration of the year 2001 as the ‘United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations’2 and Kofi Annan’s reception speech for the Nobel Peace Price in 2001 (almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks) were among the first prominent references to religion ever to be witnessed on this level of international politics.3 Around the same time, the initiatives for interreligious and intercultural dialogue drew heavily upon the idea of the resurgence of religions, constructing religion primarily as a resource for peace and conflict resolution that should gain increasing significance in international relations. Along those lines, this strand of the discussions has focused on the question of peace and conflict and has helped to establish this discussion as a major topos of the resurgence debates. Complementary to this first strand, it is possible to identify two distinct sets of ‘religious officials and experts’ that form a second group of outspoken proponents

Resurgence debates, revisited   21 of the resurgence debates. On the one hand, there are those religious officials and experts that are at the centre of the discussions on what is frequently described as ‘religious fundamentalism’.4 From the works of Juergensmeyer and Riesebrodt, we learn that the activities of this group are central to the resurgence debates in so far as they form the focal point of most empirical analyses.5 With regard to the present argument, religious officials and experts that propagate a liberal reading of religious traditions are, however, at least as significant in actively shaping the resurgence debates. To give but two prominent examples: in the field of German academic theology, Friedrich Wilhelm Graf is among the very prolific writers who have been arguing for ‘a return of the gods’.6 Internationally speaking, the Dalai Lama plays a similar role. He can certainly be identified as one of the most successful popularizers of the resurgence idea – first in terms of his own writings and second with regard to the role he plays in international debates.7 Finally, the mainstream media have started to play a major role in those discussions. Just a few years ago, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (from The Economist) published a widely appraised, journalistic contribution to the resurgence debates. Under the title ‘God is Back’ they express their surprise at how many different ways religiously affiliated groups and individuals have started to influence policies and politics around the world.8 And this is no isolated example. During the last decade, almost all major newspapers and journals have put religion-­related stories on their front pages, primarily highlighting newsworthy aspects of present-­day religion such as mass events, acts of violence, or legal conflicts.9 A trend that adds not only further urgency to the resurgence debates but also a much wider audience. In total, the reference to these different strands of the resurgence debates helps to identify two defining dimensions. On the one hand, the mere existence of those strands highlights the complexity of the underlying socio-­cultural processes that are not at all concise, but rather follow a wide array of different agendas. From the point of view of international political elites, there is for example a sense of insecurity with regard to religions, while the more liberal religious officials and experts tend to underline the positive impact of religions. On the other hand, these debates indicate that there is an increasing conviction among significant parts of international political elites as well as religious officials and experts and international media that the role of religions is changing fundamentally, and that religions are increasingly gaining significance. And this general conviction has gained such a momentum that it has – in itself – contributed to a change in the socio-­cultural construction of religions. In addition, the second of these two lines of thought already hints towards the analytic centre of the resurgence debates. Addressing what is frequently called the ‘secularization paradigm’, the resurgence debates are putting the focus on a generic critique of classical secularization theories. In order to grasp the full heuristics potential of these debates it is, therefore, necessary to go on, and to have a closer look at the role these theories play in the context of the resurgence debates.

22   Resurgence debates, revisited 2.1.2  Critique of ‘secularization paradigm’ – analytic core of resurgence debates To take this second step of the present argument, the small omnibus volume Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics10 (edited by Peter L. Berger) is the single most important point of reference. Published in 1999, this volume brought together some of the most prolific protagonists of the resurgence debates (notably David Martin, Grace Davie, and Abdullahi A. An-­ Na’im) in order to discuss the links between the idea of a resurgence of religions, and Peter L. Berger’s concept of ‘desecularization’.11 Setting the stage for those discussions, Berger begins the introduction to this volume with his interpretation of the dynamic developments on the present-­day religious scene and argues for a re-­assessment of secularization theory in the light of a resurgence of religions: My point is that the assumption we live in a secularized world is false. [. . .] To be sure, modernization has had some secularizing effects, more in some places than in others. But it has also provoked powerful movements of counter-­secularization. Also, secularization on the societal level is not necessarily linked to secularization on the level of individual consciousness. Certain religious institutions have lost power and influence in many societies, but both old and new religious beliefs and practices have nevertheless continued in the lives of individuals, sometimes taking new institutional forms and sometimes leading to great explosions of religious fervor.12 This particular reading of the present-­day religious scene has set the tone for the resurgence debates far beyond the contributors to Berger’s edited volume. First, it served as a point of reference for those studies that link the concept of the resurgence of religions to the concept of secularization, and perceive the secularization paradigm as the central background for the analysis of the resurgence of religions. Second, Berger’s general critique of the traditional junctim between modernization and secularization has gained far-­reaching support, in so far as it set an important precedent for the critique of classical secularization theory. The most recent discussions on religions in international relations are a good case in point. They are not only of immediate significance for the present analyses; in addition, they show how the Bergerian approach has gained increasing influence beyond the circles of the sociology of religions. For an outsider, a review of the respective literature is, however, a very challenging task. Even a most superficial glance at the manifold introductory works on international relations provides a vivid impression of the variety of different approaches that dominate this field and the distinct convictions that form the basis of these approaches. Under the heading of ‘Major Perspectives’, the 2008 Oxford Handbook of International Relations lists, for example, ten different approaches (ranging from Marxism to liberalism to postmodernism and feminism) with their respective analytical premises, terminological tools, and socio-­political agendas.13

Resurgence debates, revisited   23 Taking this highly complex state of research into consideration, it is still possible to argue that the better part of this literature was (and still is) very much dominated by a secularization approach. On the one hand, the mainstream of international relations literature perceives religion as an aspect of the history of international relations (starting with to the Treaty of Westphalia), with only limited influence on present-­day politics. On the other hand, the majority of present-­day research in this field is based upon the widespread normative consensus that religion and politics (or rather, Church and state) need to be separated, and that religions must not be analysed with reference to politics (and vice versa).14 Taken together, these two lines of thought have led to a general tendency to minimize the role of religions in the analysis of international relations. Throughout the last decade, this situation has, however, slowly been changing towards the direction of Peter Berger’s argument. More recent analyses have started to question the analytical viability of a strict distinction between ‘religions’ and ‘international politics’ and to highlight, for example, the roles of religiously affiliated actors in international relations.15 Most of those analyses criticize the general idea of a quasi-­automatic secularization under modern conditions and use the concept of a resurgence of religions to make their point. In other words: with reference to the idea of a resurgence of religions, an increasing number of authors has begun to re-­evaluate the viability of traditional secularization theory for the analysis of international politics, thus providing an interesting frame of reference for the present considerations. This relatively new strand of the debates on religions in international relations can be traced back to pioneering analyses such as the aforementioned The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State,16 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,17 or the more specialized edited volumes, Transnational Religion and Fading State18 and Religion in International Relations19 that have triggered an increasing interest in the influence of religions on international relations. Taken together, these early conceptual works form the basis for a number of authors (such as, Tom Banchoff,20 Scott M. Thomas,21 Jack Snyder,22 or Monica D. Toft et al.)23 that have become the protagonists of more recent debates arguing for an increasing significance of religions in international relations. Throughout the last decade, these debates have reached the stage of first handbooks that summarize the main lines of present-­day research: Jeffrey Haynes’ second edition of the Introduction to International Relations and Religion underlines the idea of a post-­secular approach to religions in international relations.24 Eric O. Hanson follows in Religion and Politics in the International System Today an approach that highlights the role of religiously affiliated actors in what he describes as the ‘new global paradigm’ of four global systems – economics, the military, communications, and politics.25 Most recently Katherine Marshall has strengthened this global dimension by underlining the long traditions of religiously affiliated actors (Marshall prefers the notion of the ‘faith-­ inspired organization’) on an international level:26

24   Resurgence debates, revisited Religion is a major factor in world politics today, with a mixture of much-­ debated positive and negative dimensions. Wars are fought where religious identities ignite and fuel tensions. Terrorists from different world religions claim the mantle of religious ideology. Religious voices enjoin us to work for peace and a just world order, to renounce greed, to protect the environment, and to care for those who are downtrodden.27 At the risk of oversimplifying, the review of these publications makes it very clear how the respective academic discussions identify the critique of secularization theory as the centre of the resurgence debates: first, they argue that we are witnessing a new role of religions in modern societies that contradicts the idea of an increasing secularization. Second, they describe the idea of secularization as an overall paradigm that has been dominating the study of religions for quite some time and needs to be put under scrutiny. To give but one further example of this general trend: in Germany, Ulrich Willems and Michael Minkenberg refer to the ‘new paradigm’ in the study of religions in order to juxtapose resurgence and secularization: Es verdient hervorgehoben zu werden, dass dieses Säkularisierungsparadigma in den vergangenen Jahren durch eine Gruppe von amerikanischen Sozialwissenschaftlern grundsätzlich in Frage gestellt worden ist. Sie haben ein angebotsorientiertes Modell entwickelt, um die unterschiedlichen Niveaus von Kirchganghäufigkeit oder Mitgliedschaft in religiösen Organisationen bzw. die unterschiedlichen Grade von Säkularisierung in verschiedenen Ländern zu erklären.28 There are, however, further voices that argue that it would be misleading to reduce the resurgence debates to this type of general critique of the secularization paradigm. A closer look at most recent trends in the study of religions highlights a number of critical voices that have started to question significant parts of this idea. 2.1.3  Critical voices from different positions These critical voices underline once again the complexity of the discussions around the resurgence of religions. Not unlike the proponents of the resurgence debates, the critics are also embedded in a multitude of different discourses and do not refer to one coherent set of ideas. In this regard, it is helpful to repeat the approach that has been used to characterize the resurgence debates and to identify five analytically independent – yet empirically connected – strands, with different groups of authors voicing very specific points of critique. First of all, there is a strand of critical voices that questions not so much the notion of resurgence, but rather the overall dimensions of the processes subsumed under this category. Along this line of thought, one set of authors challenges the global dimension frequently associated with the resurgence debates.29

Resurgence debates, revisited   25 They argue that the resurgence debates are actually based upon the undue generalization of single observations (in regional, national, or local contexts). In this sense, authors such as Christopher A. Bayly30 or Jürgen Osterhammel and Niels P. Peterson31 question the focus on recent events in the 1960s and 1970s. From a historical perspective, they argue that the significant changes in the history of religions are much older than the 1960s, at least dating back to what they call the ‘long nineteenth century’. In addition, it is possible to identify an ongoing critique of the normative undertone of the resurgence debates. In the wake of R. Scott Appleby’s analysis of ‘the ambivalence of the sacred’,32 an increasing group of scholars question the seemingly exclusive confrontation between ‘bad religion’ as a source of violence and ‘good religion’ as the basis for understanding and peace. To name but two examples: on methodological grounds, Hans G. Kippenberg made the point that the framing of violent action can be religious as well as secular.33 Arguing in a more historical way, David Martin’s analyses of Christian interpretations of war (and pacifism) underline the multifold Christian approaches to violence.34 In sum, these publications highlight the complexity of those processes that are linked to the notion of a resurgence of religion. While the protagonists of these first two strands are primarily asking for (significant) modifications of the resurgence debates, a third strand of criticism challenges the analytical value of the concept of resurgence itself. The protagonists of this line of thought ask for a reconfiguration of particular dimensions of the resurgence debates. From the point of view of the analysis of individual religiosity, an increasing number of authors is starting to question the notion of resurgence with respect to its significance for individual believers.35 They argue that the resurgence debates are primarily an expert phenomenon without further links to individual beliefs or constructions of reality. In this respect, this argument is closely linked to a general deconstruction of the resurgence debates as a media phenomenon rather being detached from the developments of religiously affiliated organizations or individual believers.36 This critique of the analytical value of the resurgence debates is closely linked to a fourth strand of criticism that puts more emphasis on the complexity of religious traditions (in the plural). Starting from very different definitions of religion its protagonists argue that the resurgence debates need to pay much more attention to different religious and cultural contexts.37 Parallel to Eisenstadt’s notion of multiple modernities, this approach can be summarized under a concept of ‘multiple globalities’ proposing that under global conditions, the development of present-­day religions are influenced by the very different organizational structures and discourses that developed in various religious traditions, organizations, or movements.38 Along those lines, it makes no sense to talk about a resurgence of religions without referring to the differences between the multifold dimensions of this process. In light of what has been presented in the previous section, it is, however, not surprising that the most outspoken criticism of the resurgence debates comes from among the proponents of secularization theory. Authors such as Steve Bruce or

26   Resurgence debates, revisited Detlef Pollack been added two significant points to the resurgence debates. On the one hand, they argue that the critique of the secularization paradigm highlights a number of significant empirical facts that become, however, exaggerated.39 They have, for example, made the point that neither fundamentalist developments nor an increasing significance of new forms of spirituality provide sufficient evidence to question the general conviction that religion is losing ground in modern societies.40 On the other hand, they propose a re-­evaluation of secularization theories. In his programmatic volume Rückkehr des Religiösen?, Pollack asks, for example, for the implementation of the following research programme: Vonnöten ist also die Bearbeitung einer doppelten Aufgabe. Zum einen müssen die säkularisierungstheoretischen Aussagen auf einer theoretischen Ebene analysiert und auf ihre begrifflichen Voraussetzungen hin reflektiert, zum anderen müssen sie auf eine empirische Grundlage gestellt und anhand verfügbarer Daten der Überprüfung zugeführt werden.41 As far as the present discussions are concerned, this most recent strand of criticism is of particular interest. It puts particular emphasis on a new approach to the study of secularization processes that points – at the same time – towards the need for a further re-­assessment of the resurgence debates as well as their rootedness in secularization theory. In this sense, it proposes that it would be misleading to reduce the idea of a resurgence of religions to an inversion of those processes that have been labelled as secularization paradigms. It rather points towards more recent debates among the protagonists of secularization theory that ask for a critical reformulation of the central categories of their own approach. The resurgence debates have to include more nuanced debates on the concept of secularization in order to develop their full heuristic potential.

2.2  On the analytical basis of the ‘secularization paradigm’ In light of this particular approach to the resurgence debates, it is important to manage expectations: without any doubt, secularization theory – or rather, theories – stand at the very centre of academic disciplines such as Sociology, Psychology, and Anthropology. They are closely linked to the analysis of modernization processes that were (and to a certain degree still are) of central importance to those disciplines.42 In this sense, the respective body of literature is huge, and it would be hypocritical to present a general discussion in just a few pages.43 The argument to be developed in the present section is much more humble. In order to further elaborate the heuristic potential of the resurgence debates, it starts from those publications on the concept of secularization that highlight the conceptual basis of this whole set of hypotheses. To give but one example: under the impression of the resurgence debates, Steve Bruce – one of the major proponents of secularization theory today – has summarized the complexity of present-­day secularization debates in the following way:

Resurgence debates, revisited   27 The secularization paradigm aims to explain one of the greatest changes in social structure and culture: the displacement of religion from the centre of human life. [. . . It thus] includes: • • • •

• •

the decay of religious institutions; the displacement, in matters of behaviour, of religious rules and principles by demands that accord with strictly technical criteria; the sequestration by political powers of the property and facilities of religious agencies; the replacement of a specifically religious consciousness (which might range from dependence on charms, rites, spells, or prayers, to a broad spiritually inspired ethical concern) by an empirical, rational, instrumental orientation; the shift from religious to secular control of a variety of social activities and functions; the decline in the proportion of their time, energy, and resources that people devote to supernatural concerns.44

Along those lines, the next paragraphs will focus on three dimensions of the more recent discussions around the theory of secularization that will help to further develop the heuristic frame of reference to guide the following analyses. They start from a number of proposals that argue for a historization of the very concept of the secular. On this basis, they highlight two strands of present-­day discussions that provide interesting contributions towards a re-­ assessment of the analytical core of secularization theory. Finally, they introduce the most recently developed concept of sedimentation that can provide new input to those debates. 2.2.1  Historization of the concept of the secular The first step of this argument starts from a line of thought presented by the English sociologist of religions, David Martin, in the final edited volume of the Religion and Society Research Programme. In his programmatic contribution to this volume, Martin made the point that the more recent discussion on the resurgence debates and their critique of the ‘secularization paradigm’ are in danger of re-­producing what he calls the ‘standard model’ of secularization. On the basis of his earlier works,45 Martin argues that secularization theory has to move beyond simplifying dichotomies of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ and to highlight the historic complexity of the processes in question. We cannot fully understand categories like ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ without understanding how they have been shaped historically, by their origins in Christianity and by the way they were construed in early modernity with the advent of the nation state. [. . .] Only once this work is done will it be possible to address what can be called the standard model of the ‘secular and

28   Resurgence debates, revisited secularization’ and to see it as part of the unfolding history of Christianity and Christendom, rather than a simple description of its demise.46 This quotation immediately triggers a number of different questions concerning, for example, the special role Martin attributes to Christianity or the usefulness of clear-­cut categories to describe historical processes.47 With regard to the present argument, it adds an interesting new perspective in as far as it can be read in line with a most recent trend in the study of secularization processes: the works of authors such as Hermann Lübbe, Karel Dobbelaere, or Hartmut Lehmann48 have highlighted to what extent the present use of the concept of ‘the secular’ is based upon a highly heterogeneous category. On the basis of recent historical analyses, they argue that already the Roman concept of the saeculum incorporated three very different meanings – the idea of ‘age’, the idea of ‘era’, and the idea of ‘century’.49 Not even medieval canon law perceived ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ as mutually exclusive categories. Parish priests were, for example, perceived as ‘secular persons’ as long as they were not exclusively subject to canon law.50 Along those lines, researchers, such as the German sociologist of religions Karl Gabriel, have added further precision to this argument. Gabriel identified what he calls the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ (inter alia characterized by the disestablishment of Catholic orders in the context of Late Absolutism) as well as the formation of the modern nation state (in Germany linked to the establishment of the Reichsdeputationshauptschluss in 1803) as the corner stone for the present-­day construction of what is perceived as religious or secular.51 On the one hand, Gabriel argues that the European ‘Age of Enlightenment’ is the socio-­ historical context in which ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ became perceived as two opposing social fields. On the other hand, he proposes that this is the historic period in which the concept of secularity gained a much wider normative dimension based upon the emerging ideal of a separation of church and state.52 José Casanova’s modern classic Public Religions in the Modern World has been using those observations in order to introduce a more nuanced concept of secularization into the debates: A central thesis and main theoretical premise of this work has been that what usually passes for a single theory of secularization is actually made up of three very different, uneven and unintegrated propositions: secularization as differentiation of the secular spheres from religious institutions and norms, secularization as a decline of religious beliefs and practices, and secularization as marginalization of religion to a privatized sphere.53 As far as the present considerations are concerned, these more recent contributions not only underline the significance of ‘public space’ for the discussion of secularization processes. They also make the point that the very concept of ‘the secular’ has to be used in a more complex way. Most recently, Casanova has pushed this second part of his argument even further. Expanding his concept of

Resurgence debates, revisited   29 the secular with reference to Taylor’s interpretation of the concept of axiality,54 Casanova opens a perspective that introduces three dichotomies into the discussion that are analytically distinct, while being interlinked on the empirical level: Ein großer Teil der Schwierigkeiten, die Prozesse der Säkularisierung, der religiösen Transformation und der Säkularisierung in unserem globalen Zeitalter als simultane und nicht als einander ausschließende Prozesse zu analysieren, rührt von der Tendenz her, die dichotomen analytischen Kategorien heilig/profan, transzendent/immanent und religiös/säkular so zu benutzen, als wären sie synonym und austauschbar, wo sie doch tatsächlich historisch markanten, in gewisser Weise überlappenden aber nicht synonym oder äquivalenten sozialen Systemen der Klassifikation korrespondieren.55 With regard to the resurgence debates, this new trend towards the historization of the concepts of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ pushes the discussions beyond the use of simplistic dichotomies.56 In doing so, it puts emphasis on further strands of secularization theory that some of the protagonists of the ‘resurgence debates’ seem to have forgotten. The above underlines that secularization processes are much more complex and need further reflection in order to form the basis for the analyses of resurgence processes. And this is exactly the place where the second step of the present argument comes in. It will make the point that it is indispensable to re-­assess the analytic core of secularization theory. 2.2.2  Re-­assessing the analytical core of secularization theory In order to make this second step, it is interesting to introduce two important strands of the discussions on the secularization debates that are adding further dimensions to its central categories. The first of these two strands might actually come as a surprise. It originates in the work of Thomas Luckmann, who is normally perceived as one of the fundamental critics (rather than innovators) of secularization theory. In the 1960s and 1970s, Luckmann famously voiced a critique of secularization theory that was based upon the reformulation of the sociology of knowledge he was working on with Peter L. Berger. Luckmann’s classical essay, The Invisible Religion can, however, also be read as a contribution to secularization theory that links the critique of the simplicity of traditional secularization theory with the demand to reformulate the central research questions of the sociology of religions: The shrinking of church religion, however, is only one – and the sociologically less interesting – dimension of the problem of secularization. For the analysis of contemporary society another question is more important. What are the dominant values overarching contemporary culture? What is the socio-­structural basis of these values and what is their function in the lives of contemporary man?57

30   Resurgence debates, revisited Authors such as Hubert Knoblauch, Bernt Schnettler or Monika Wohlrab-­ have been using Luckmann’s critical emphasis on new social forms of religions in order to show the extent to which the exclusive focus on ‘the Church’ is misleading: It may be said, in sum, that the modern sacred cosmos symbolizes the socio-­ cultural phenomenon of individualism and that it bestows in various articulations, ‘ultimate’ significance upon the structurally determined phenomenon of the ‘private sphere.’ We tried to show that the structure of the modern sacred cosmos and its thematic content represent the emergence of a new social form of religion which, in turn, is determined by a radical transformation in the relation of the individual to the social order.59 With regard to the present argument, this reading of Luckmann’s helps to introduce a significant dimension into the debates at hand – without, however, necessarily questioning the concept of secularization itself.60 It underlines to what extent fundamental preconditions (such as the social form of religions) influence the analysis of secularization processes and it proposes that these preconditions have to inform theory as well as methodology. Consequently the reference to Luckmann and his collaborators asks to introduce a basic re-­assessment of the categorical foundations of secularization theory into the present frame of reference. In this respect, the previous considerations set the tone for a second strand of criticism that is of particular interest for the present analyses – this time from the point of Post-­colonial Studies. Here, the author Talal Asad can be identified as the major point of reference, repeatedly making the point that the dichotomy of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ has to be interpreted as a colonial doctrine. In his edited volume Formations of the Secular (2003), Asad sums up the overall claim of this doctrine in the following way: Secularism as a political doctrine arose in modern Euro-­America. It is easy to think of it simply as requiring the separation of religious and secular institutions in government, but that is not all it is. Abstractly stated, examples of this separation can be found in medieval Christendom and in Islamic empires – and no doubt elsewhere too. What is distinct about ‘secularism’ is that it presupposes new concepts of ‘religion,’ ‘ethics,’ and ‘politics,’ and new imperatives associated with them.61 In doing so, Asad adds yet another dimension to the present discussions by highlighting the fundamental distinction between ‘the secular’ (as a social category) and ‘secularism’ (as a colonial construct): ‘It is a major premise of this study, that ‘the secular’ is conceptionally prior to the political doctrine of ‘secularism’, that over time a variety of concepts, practices, and sensibilities have come together to form ‘the secular.’62 Together with criticism in the tradition of Thomas Luckmann, these observations ask the present analyses to put the initial interest in the phenomena labelled as a

Resurgence debates, revisited   31 resurgence of religions into a more ambitious theoretical framework. The discussion must no longer be reduced to an increase or decrease of the significance of religions. On the one hand, the above considerations underline the complex power relations that are at the centre of the very construction of categories such as ‘the religious’ and the ‘secular’. On the other hand, they question the bipolarity that seems to stand at the centre of most of the resurgence debates. In doing so, they ask the question of how to analytically grasp the respective processes It is precisely at this point that a recent discussion in the English Study of Religions has proposed to introduce the concept of ‘sedimentation’ into the debate. 2.2.3  Sedimentation of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’? The above considerations are, of course, not completely new. During the last two decades, authors such as Russell T. McCutcheon, Donald Wiebe, and Tomoko Masuzawa have repeatedly made the point that the differentiation between ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ is a construction that evolved out of a very specific socio-­political context and that researchers have to question the analytical usefulness of the respective categories.63 With explicit links to the debates inside international relations, Timothy Fitzgerald has spelled out this critique in the following way: It is this whole discourse on religion, religions and the religious with which I am critically concerned, and which I argue constitutes a globalizing modern myth with its own ideological work to do. And it is this modern myth that is being taken up and propagated over the last 15 to 20 years by IR [international relations] and political science. [. . .] I am arguing that the formation of any secular domain imagined as ‘non-­religious’ is historically dependent on the conceptualization of religion as a distinct and different domain, even where this is unacknowledged.64 And these considerations can be linked to a number of further analyses by authors such as Niklas Luhmann, Pierre Bourdieu, and Alain Caillé,65 that highlight the ideological, functional, or structural similarities between religion and politics as well as the socio-­cultural processes that form the basis of their differentiation. All these authors have questioned the viability of any attempt that tries to construct ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ as two exclusive academic categories. Using concepts such as borders or boundaries, they contribute to the present discussions by pointing towards the empirical separations of those distinct spheres – as well as the empirical interrelatedness of the phenomena in question. This is the point where the concept of a sedimentation of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ comes in. Compared to the previous categories, this notion is a rather recent one. As it is presented here, it refers to an article by Linda Woodhead that proposes a new approach in order to better grasp secularization processes.

32   Resurgence debates, revisited The approach offered here rejects the starting point that the terms ‘religion’ and ‘the secular’ are neutral concepts which can serve as unproblematic building blocks of data collection and analysis. It treats them instead as an integral part of the milieu to be analysed rather than as detached standpoints from which it can be viewed. [. . .] This multi-­layered, sedimented situation explains why secularization theory continues to be able to explain some, but not all, of the present situation.66 At the present stage, Woodhead’s concept of sedimentation is no more (and no less) than a new metaphor that can be used to add a significant twist to the present heuristic frame of reference. In light of (and in opposition to) classical discussions inside the Academic Study of Religions,67 it is based upon secondary analyses of the different empirical results of the Religion and Society Programme Woodhead has been shaping and coordinating over the last few years. On the basis of the manifold analyses of the post-­war history of religions in Britain that were part of this programme, Woodhead has roughly identified three phases that – according to her interpretation of the data – have dominated the development of religions in England since the end of World War II. As the starting-­point of the first phase, Woodhead identifies the years immediately after the end of World War II. During the 1940s and 1950s she refers to the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II to make the point that at this time religion was so much part of the state structure that it primarily followed a logic of administration. For Woodhead, the second phase covers the 1960s and 1970s. With regard to those two decades, she refers to the depiction of the medical doctors (the ‘gods in white’) of the National Health Service/NHS as an example of a construction of religion along the lines of social welfare institutions. Finally the so-­called New Religious Movements/NRMs provide Woodhead with a point of reference for a third phase of this development, which she perceives as being dominated by a construction of religion in economical terms. These three phases form the basis for Woodhead’s concept of sedimentation, which grasps the respective processes in a new way: For most of this period [post-­war Britain] reflection has been shaped by the dominant framework of ‘secularization’, and, more recently, the competing idea of ‘desecularization’. [. . .] Taken together, the contributions to this book endorse neither perspective. [. . .] Instead post-­war Britain emerges as religious and secular. This only seems puzzling if existing frameworks are retained, but that they are elements in a zero-­sum equation, such that modern history can only be told as a simple evolutionary tale: either from the religious to the secular, or from the secular to the religious.68 In this sense, the concept of sedimentation proposes an analytical perspective that analyses the process of secularization as the social construction of different layers of what is described as ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. With regard to the resurgence debates and the underlying concept of secularization, the concept of

Resurgence debates, revisited   33 sedimentation provides the discussions with an approach that helps to avoid the problem David Martin identified as the mere reproduction of a ‘standard model’ of secularization. It opens a perspective that goes beyond the bipolarity of the standard model. To put this differently: the concept of sedimentation put forward by Woodhead can help to provide the following analyses with an interesting heuristic frame of reference. On the one hand, it is in accordance with the trend to historicize the categories that are at the centre of the secularization debates. On the other hand, it helps to make the point that these processes are – first – based upon very concrete power relations that support (or prevent) the establishment of particular sediments, and that the analysis of those power relations is – second – directly linked to the dominant social construction of religions. Before it is possible to further elaborate on the heuristic potential of this perspective it is, however, necessary to come back to the RNGOs and to have a look at the academic discussions that directly deal with the RNGOs in the context of the UN.

2.3  Religious Non-­governmental Organizations/RNGOs in the context of the UN The corpus of literature that focuses directly on the role of RNGOs in the context of the UN is so far produced by a relatively small group of researchers. The majority of the existing analyses have been undertaken from the professional point of view of people that are actively working in this context – be it as official employees or voluntary supporters of specific RNGOs, or as people working in the context of the UN, who are – on a daily basis – cooperating with RNGOs. So as far as the present argument is concerned, these analyses not only add significant context to the empirical analyses that will be presented in the following chapters. In addition, they also provide further depth to the theoretical discussion by highlighting (1) the special role RNGOs have had in the context of the UN, as well as (2) the heterogeneity of the RNGOs in the context of the UN. 2.3.1  Special role of RNGOs in the context of the UN Most authors that deal with the role of RNGOs in the context of the UN identify Geoffrey Knox’s study Religion and Public Policy at the UN (published as a Religion Counts Report in 2002) as the first major attempt to approach this subject matter.69 Commissioned by a liberal Catholic organization,70 this study is still sets standards in as far as it provides the readers not only with a detailed description of the wide field of RNGOs, but also with manifold insights into the individual approaches of the RNGO activists that are based upon in-­depth interviews Geoffrey Knox conducted with those representatives. Providing a very first systematic insight into the present-­day activities of the RNGOs, Knox underlined the dynamic increase of their activities as well as the manifold forms these activities have taken.

34   Resurgence debates, revisited One year later, Julia Berger published a short article with an ‘explanatory analysis’ of the RNGOs that developed into another classic in the field.71 Linked to the UN office of the Baha’i International Community (BIC), Berger started to approach the field of the RNGOs in a more systematic manner, proposing the following definition: RNGOs are ‘formal organizations whose identity and mission are self-­ consciously derived from the teachings of one or more religious or spiritual traditions and which operate on a nonprofit, independent, voluntary basis to promote and realize collectively articulated ideas about the public good at the national or international level.’72 This definition brings together three aspects: first of all, Berger conceptualizes RNGOs as ‘formal organizations’, thus distinguishing them from movements or informal groups and highlighting their organizational structures as well as their complex discourses. On this basis, she adds two specifications – first with regard to the character of the discourses inside the RNGOs (identity and mission self-­ derived from teachings of one or more religious or spiritual traditions), and second with regard to their organizational structure (operation on a non-­profit, independent, voluntary basis). This conceptualization provides a very good reconstruction of the self-­descriptions put forward by the protagonists inside the RNGOs. It highlights that those protagonists tend to underline the specific role of the RNGOs – (1) within the UN, and (2) within their respective religious traditions. In most cases, the RNGOs are described as the link between the respective religious traditions and what is perceived as the NGO community inside the UN. Along those lines, the debates on the role of the RNGOs inside the UN context have seen an augmenting number of further articles primarily published in what can be described as a professional context. The 2010 special issue of the journal CrossCurrents stands for an increasing number of texts that bring together a wide range of authors explicitly attempting to ‘provide a platform for further discussion and action among UN staff, scholars of religion, and religious communities themselves’.73 With interesting links to the practical work of the RNGOs, the contributions to CrossCurrents provide the readers with a multi-­ faceted description of the panorama of present-­day RNGO activities, and reflect upon the difficulties that dominate the cooperation between those religiously affiliated organizations and the UN. This is, however, only half of the story. A second strand of the debates underlines the heterogeneity of the RNGOs in the context of the UN. 2.3.2  Heterogeneity of RNGOs in the context of the UN This second line of thought starts from a wider statistical survey presented by John Boli and David V. Brewington on what these two authors call Religious International Non-­governmental Organizations (RINGOs). Based upon data pro-

Resurgence debates, revisited   35 vided by the Yearbook of International Organizations,74 Boli and Brewington have made the point that: The final number of RINGOs is 3,123. With the same set of limits for the entire INGO [International NGOs] population, the total for 2001–02 is 23,179 organizations, so INGOs with at least some degree of religious orientation amount to 13,5% of all INGOs active at the time that were founded before 1994.75 And this general assessment is also applicable to the RNGOs in the context of the UN. Most researchers are in agreement that approximately 10 per cent of the NGOs can be described as religiously affiliated.76 In absolute numbers, this 10 per cent translates into around 200 organizations with religious affiliation that are active in the context of the UN. The following chapter will present a much more detailed description of these RNGOs and their developments inside the UN context. With regard to the present argument, it should be enough to make the point that these organizations are very diverse indeed. On the basis of the list of NGOS officially accredited to ECOSOC, Karsten Lehmann argued in 2010 that around half of the RNGOs had a Christian background (c.110). In addition, he identified around 30 organizations that described themselves as Muslim, about 15 organizations that characterized themselves as interreligious, approximately ten organizations that underlined their Jewish affiliation, and, at that time, some five organizations that described themselves as Buddhist or Hindu.77 The existing research literature provides three major attempts to further classify this heterogeneous set of RNGOs. Among these attempts it is once again Julia Berger’s publication that has served as a starting-­point for most of the discussions in as far as it presents the most inclusive approach distinguishing four interrelated dimensions: • •

• •

The religious dimension: subdivided into the affiliation to religious traditions (Baha’i, Buddhist, etc.) and the pervasiveness of the activities (focusing, for example, on organizational identity, mission, or decision making). The organizational dimension: including the question of representation (e.g. in terms of religion, geography, or organization), the geographical range of the organization (from local to multinational), and the organizational structure (in terms of federations, confederations, grants, etc.). The strategic dimension: highlighting the general mission of the RNGOs (divided into general mission and specialized mission) as well as the applied processes (e.g. moral persuasion, dialogue, or information). The service dimension: taking into account the general orientation of the services (such as education, relief, social services, etc.), once again the geographical range, and finally the targeted beneficiaries (members, non-­ members, and a combination of both).

This four-­dimensional model is very helpful in as far as it describes RNGO activities and pinpoints possible differences among the RNGOs. It provides,

36   Resurgence debates, revisited however, neither systematic hints towards the dynamics and trajectories that form the basis of the establishment of these dimensions nor an analytical tool to describe the relationship between those dimensions. In other words, this classification presents a tool to describe the present-­day RNGO landscape, without, however, being able to understand its development. And this sets the tone for the existing literature in general. So far, the majority of the analyses present a highly differentiated picture of the RNGOs that is, however, of a rather descriptive and static character. To name but two further examples: right at the beginning of his study on Religion and Public Policy at the UN, Knox highlights a distinction that crosses right through Berger’s four dimensions by arguing that the divide between conservative and progressive RNGOs is crucial for the RNGO activities inside the UN context: We found that a useful way of categorizing and examining the religious groups at the UN today is by distinguishing the ideological stances they take [along the lines of the conservative and progressive divide]. This approach may be a bit more slippery than focusing solely on their religious identity, but it does reflect the reality of religious activity in the UN arena.78 The second contribution that has to be mentioned here is the work of Gerard Clarke. In a 2006 article, Clarke presented an analytic distinction that takes the explicit structural self-­description of the RNGOs as a starting-­point to identify the specific thematic emphases of the RNGOs, differentiating one out of the four dimensions presented by Berger: • • • • •

faith-­based representative organizations faith-­based charitable or development organizations faith-­based socio-­political organizations faith-­based missionary organizations, and faith-­based radical, illegal, or terrorist organizations.79

Linking these considerations back to the much more general reflections that have been presented in the first two sections of this chapter makes it possible to identify four major challenges. First, so far, the analyses of the RNGOs have focused too much on the RNGOs, without taking the wider socio-­cultural context into consideration. Most of the existing literature approaches the RNGOs in isolation; cross-­references to the wider context (e.g. in international relations or the history of religions) are still relatively rare. Second, the analyses are too focused on the present-­day situation, neglecting the dynamics of the whole setting. The RNGOs, as well as the UN context, are not static phenomena and must not be reduced to the present-­day situation. Third, existing publications on RNGOs tend to reflect the self-­presentation of the RNGOs without critically assessing the basis of these self-­presentations. There needs to be more emphasis on the distinction between emic and etic categories of religion or religious

Resurgence debates, revisited   37 affiliation. Fourth, these analyses put the developments of the RNGOs in the context of the resurgence of religions, without further reflection upon the underlying socio-­cultural processes. Currently, a number of research projects are working on these issues. Besides the book at hand, the project coordinated by Jeremy Carrette and Hugh Miall at the University of Kent (together with Evelyn Bush, Fordham University) draws heavily upon existing mapping enterprises and approaches the subject-­matter from the perspective of globalization theory as well as a rational choice approach to religion.80 In addition, there is the work of Josef Boehle at the University of Birmingham, who is a distinguished expert on the interreligious and intercultural activities of RNGOs within the UN context. Since the mid-­2000s, Boehle has increasingly published about the interreligious aspect of NGO-­activities within the UN context, inter alia linking the activities of the RNGOs to the Millennium Development Goals.81 Taken together, these considerations help to further specify the three leading questions that were formulated at the beginning of the Introduction, and to formulate a more precise heuristic frame of reference. 2.3.3  Heuristic frame of reference This, finally, is the place to return to the guiding questions that were put forward in the Introduction and to use the manifold discussions that have been presented in this chapter to further substantiate these questions into a heuristic frame of reference. The first question is: how far is the so-­called resurgence of religions based upon changes inside a specific group of religiously affiliated organizations that describe themselves as Religious NGOs? As far as this initial question is concerned, the discussion in the present chapter proposes that the upcoming analyses have to be particularly cautious with regards to the complexity of the resurgence debates. What can be described as a resurgence of religions is very much dependent upon the focus of the respective analyses and the point of view of the respective authors. In general, there seems to be far-­reaching agreement that the resurgence of religions is associated with an increasing impact of religions (thus the opposition to traditional ideas of secularization). This impact has, however, been linked to very different dimensions of social life such as (first and foremost) political influence, the dominance of a particular reading of religious traditions, or presence in the media. The more recent debates on the concept of secularization propose a more differentiated approach. Against this background, previous considerations have been able to substantiate the gap in the present research literature, which the author has addressed in his proposal to look into the black box of religiously affiliated organizations such as the RNGOs. Present-­day research seems to be very much in favour of linking the work of the RNGOs in international relations to the general idea of a resurgence of religions – first with regard to the increasing numerical presence of

38   Resurgence debates, revisited RNGOs inside the UN context, and second with regard to their assessment in the existing research literature. There is, however, only limited data available on the internal processes that might be at the basis of the respective developments. So far, the majority of the existing literature more or less presuppose that an increase in public presence is based upon internal processes – and vice versa. In order to answer the first of the guiding questions it is therefore necessary to use the concept of resurgence as a heuristic tool rather than an analytic category. The following analyses will (first) have to describe the internal processes that dominated the UN-­related activities of the RNGOs, and (second) raise the question of how far these processes can be described as a resurgence. Only on this basis will it be possible to provide a substantive answer to this question, and maybe even to contribute to an analytic concept of resurgence. In this sense, the answers to this first question will have a direct influence on the responses to the second question: to what extent do those internal changes – if there are any – add to the understanding of the resurgence debates? On the basis of what has just been said, the previous description of the state of the art on the study of RNGOs adds yet another level of complexity to the discussions of the resurgence debates, or, rather, the potential of the resurgence debates for the study of the RNGOs. The research literature on RNGOs has highlighted the complexity of the respective organizations over and over again – first with regard to what can be described as the overall RNGO community (the entirety of the RNGOs formally accredited to the UN), and second with regard to the overall processes inside the RNGOs (in terms of their organizational structure as well as the construction of discourses). This adds a caveat to the present considerations that becomes even more significant as soon as one approaches the more general subject matter of religiously affiliated organizations. Along those lines, the following analyses will have to be very cautious with regard to the identification of the respective processes. So far, the existing research literature is primarily focused on the perception of the RNGOs from the outside. The upcoming analyses will have to shift this focus in a threefold manner: they will have to focus on the concrete actors as well as the strategies they are following inside RNGOs; they will have to link the analyses of those activities to the construction of discourses inside RNGOs and; they will have to do this by having a close look at the framing of the relationship towards the UN as well as towards human rights. This particular approach provides an opportunity to close a significant gap in present research. So far, the existing literature has not really dealt with the dynamics of RNGO activities. It has rather focused on the present-­day situation. It is the more general literature on religions in international relations that interprets RNGOs inside a wider resurgence framework. The following analyses will have to show to what extent these interpretations are based upon developments inside RNGOs. And once again, the answer to this question will form the basis for the discussion of the next and final question: in what way do the respective analyses contribute to a better understanding of the analysis of religions?

Resurgence debates, revisited   39 As far as this most general question is concerned, the secularization debates probably provide the most significant frame of reference for the following analyses. In most of the research literature the concept of resurgence is almost exclusively linked to a very particular critique of secularization theories. What has so far been described as a more recent strand of the debates towards a historization of secularization theory asks, however, for a disentanglement of this presupposed connection. In this sense, the respective literature suggests a much more complex frame of reference for the present discussions. The concepts of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ must not be conceptualized along the lines of a zero-­sum-game. They need to be perceived as historical categories of high complexity. The answers to this third question have to take this complexity into consideration in order to analytically grasp the processes in question. Along those lines, the following analyses will focus on the links between RNGOs (as phenomena that are traditionally linked to the resurgence debates) and the question of secularization – first in the simple sense of a decrease of religious influence, and second with regard to more complex concept of secularization. In the wake of the more recent suggestions of Linda Woodhead, they will ask a set of more detailed questions: to what extent are the notions of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ used as mutually exclusive categories? Who are the empirical bearers of the respective processes, and how do they frame them? Can the concept of ‘sedimentation’ contribute to a better understanding of the respective processes? The following chapter discusses the methodical and methodological foundations of a study that tries to answer these questions.

Notes   1 Hurd, Elizabeth, S., The Politics of Secularism in International Relations, Princeton 2008.   2 For the official records of the discussions in the UN General Assembly, see: A/56/ PV.43.   3 Kofi Annan – “Nobel Lecture”. Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 3 May 2015. www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2001/annan-­lecture.html (last accessed 2015).   4 Most comprehensively – the volumes of the, ‘Fundamentalism Project’: Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (ed.), Fundamentalism Observed, Chicago 1992; Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (ed.), Accounting for Fundamentalism – The dynamic Character of Movements – Chicago 1994; Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (ed.), Fundamentalism Comprehended, Chicago 1995; Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (ed.), Fundamentalism and the State – Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance –1996; Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (ed.), Fundamentalism and Society – Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education, Chicago 1997.   5 Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God – The Global Rise of Religious Violence, 3rd edn, Berkley/Los Angeles/London 2003; Riesebrodt, Martin, Fundamentalismus als patriarchalische Protestbewegung – Amerikanische Protestanten (1910–1928) und iranische Schiiten (1961–1971) im Vergleich, Tübingen 1990.

40   Resurgence debates, revisited   6 Graf, Friedrich W., Die Wiederkehr der Götter – Religion in der modernen Kultur, München 2007.   7 Dalai Lama, Beyond Religion – Ethics For a Whole World, London/Sydney/Auckland 2012. Compare also, Lenoir, Frédéric, La rencontre du bouddhisme et de l’Occident, Paris, 1999.   8 Micklethwait, John and Wooldridge, Adrian, God is Back – How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World, London 2009.   9 Krüger, Oliver, Die mediale Religion – Probleme und Perspektiven der religionswissenschaftlichen und wissenssoziologischen Medienforschung, Bielefeld 2012. Hoover, Stewart M., Religion in the Media Age, London/New York 2006. 10 Berger, Peter L., ‘The Desecularization of the World – A global Overview’, in Berger, Peter L., The Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics, Washington, DC 1999. 11 Compare, Kepel, Gilles, La Revanche de Dieu – Chrétiens, juifs et musulmans à la reconquête du monde, Paris 1991. 12 Berger, Peter L., ‘The Desecularization of the World’, pp. 1–18, here: pp. 2f. In this book Berger revises his own position: Berger, Peter, The Sacred Canopy – Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York 1967. 13 Reus-­Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford 2008. See also Haynes et al., World Politics – Part Three: International Relations Theories, Harlow 2010, pp. 112–231. Most of theses debates differ along the lines of national and linguistic borders. To name but a few recent German publications with direct links to the debates at hand: Minkenberg, Michael and Willems, Ulrich (eds), Politik und Religion, Wiesbaden 2003; Hildebrandt, Mathias and Brocker, Manfred (ed.), Der Begriff der Religion – Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, Wiesbaden 2008; Liedhegener, Antonius and Werkner, Ines-­Jacqueline (ed.), Religion zwischen Zivilgesellschaft und politischem System – Befunde – Positionen – Perspektiven, Wiesbaden 2011. 14 See Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton 1976; Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society – A Study of Order in World Politics, Columbia 1977; Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981; Baylis et al., The Globalization of World Politics – An Introduction to International Relations, 5th edn, Oxford 2010; Schieder, Siegfried and Spindler, Manuela (eds), Theorien der internationalen Beziehungen, 3rd edn, Opladen/Farmington Hills 2010; Brocker, Manfred (ed.), Geschichte des politischen Denkens – Ein Handbuch, Frankfurt am Main 2007. 15 Coming from a constructivist point of view, the political scientist Jack Snyder and his colleagues actually challenge this dominant reading. They discuss ways in which classical theoretical approaches provide a systematic place for the analysis of religions: Snyder, Jack (ed.), Religion and International Relations Theory, New York 2011; Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics, New York 1979; Doyle, Michael W., Liberal Peace – Selected Essays, Abingdon/New York 2012; Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge 1999. 16 Juergensmeyer, Mark, The New Cold War? – Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1993. 17 Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York/London/Toronto 1996. 18 Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber and Piscatori, James (ed.), Transnational Religion and Fading State, Boulder/Oxford 1997. 19 Petito, Fabio and Hatzopoulos, Pavlos (ed.), Religion in International Relations – The Return from Exile, New York/Basingstoke 2003. 20 Banchoff, Thomas (ed.), Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism, Oxford/New York 2007; Banchoff, Thomas and Wuthnow, Robert (eds), Religion and the Global Politics of Human Rights, Oxford/New York 2011.

Resurgence debates, revisited   41 21 Thomas, Scott M., The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations – The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-­first Century, New York/Houndmills 2005. 22 Snyder, Jack (ed.), Religion and International Relations Theory. See also Wilson, Erin K., After Secularism – Rethinking Religion in Global Politics, New York 2012. 23 Toft, Monica D. et al., God’s Century – Resurgent Religion and Global Politics, New York/London 2011. 24 Haynes, Jeffrey, Introduction to International Relations and Religion, 2nd edn, Harlow/London/New York 2013. Haynes, Jeffrey, Introduction to International Relations and Religion, Harlow/London/New York 2007. 25 Hanson, Eric O., Religion and Politics in the International System Today, Cambridge/ New York/Melbourne 2006. 26 Marshall, Katherine, Global Institutions of Religion – Ancient Movers, Modern Shakers, London/New York 2013. 27 Marshall, Katherine, Global Institutions of Religion, p. 1. 28 It is worth mentioning that a group of Amer­ican social scientists have started to question this secularization paradigm in recent years. They have developed a supply-­oriented model in order to explain the different levels of church attendance or membership in religious organizations – or rather the different degrees of secularization in different countries (translation by K. Lehmann). (Willems, Ulrich and Minkenberg, Michael, ‘Politik und Religion im Übergang – Tendenzen und Forschungsfragen am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts’, in Minkenberg, Michael and Willems, Ulrich (eds), Politik und Religion, pp. 13–41, here: p. 22) 29 Norris, Pippa and Inglehart, Ronald, Sacred and Secular – Religion and Politics Worldwide, Cambridge 2004. 30 Bayly, Christopher A., The Birth of the Modern World 1780 to 1914 – Global Connections and Comparisons, Malden/Oxford 2004. 31 Osterhammel, Jürgen and Peterson, Niels P., Geschichte der Globalisierung – Dimensionen, Prozesse, Epochen, München 2003. 32 Appleby, R. Scott, The Ambivalence of the Sacred – Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, Lanham/Boulder/New York 2000. 33 Kippenberg, Hans G., Gewalt als Gottesdienst – Religionskriege im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, München 2008. (English translation: Kippenberg, Hans G., Violence as Worship – Religious Wars in the Age of Globalization, Stanford 2011). 34 Martin, David, Does Christianity Cause War?, Oxford 1997. With references to Martin, David, Pacifism, London 1965. 35 Bochinger, Christoph, ‘Religionen, Staat und Gesellschaft: Weiterführende Überlegungen’, in Bochinger, Christoph (ed.), Religionen, Staat und Gesellschaft – Die Schweiz zwischen Säkularisierung und religiöser Vielfalt, Zürich 2012, pp. 209–241. 36 Gärtner, Christel and Gabriel, Karl, Hans Richard, Religion bei Meinungsmachern – Eine Untersuchung bei Elitejournalisten in Deutschland, Wiesbaden 2012. 37 Berger, Peter L. and Huntingon, Samuel P. (eds), Many Globalities – Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Oxford 2002; Martin, David, On Secularization – Towards a Revised General Theory, Aldershot/Burlington 2005. 38 Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (ed.), Multiple Modernities, Brunswick 2002; Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., Die Vielfalt der Moderne, Weilerswist 2000. 39 Pollack, Detlef, Rückkehr des Religiösen? – Studien zum religiösen Wandel in Deutschland und Europa II, Tübingen 2009; Bruce, Steve, Secularization – In Defence of an Unfashionable Theory, Oxford 2011. 40 This critique is not restricted to such general, theoretical debates. A wide range of more material analyses also use the notion of resurgence in a way that fundamentally

42   Resurgence debates, revisited

41

criticises the concept of secularization. To give but two of the most outspoken examples: Zeidan, David, The Resurgence of Religion – A Comparative Study of selected Themes in Christian and Islamic Fundamentalist Discourses, Leiden 2002; Thomas, Scott M., The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations – The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-­first Century, New York/Basingstoke 2005. Thus, it is necessary to work on a two-­fold task. On the one hand, the statements in the tradition of secularization theory have to be analysed on a theoretical level, and have to be reflected upon with regards to their conceptual preconditions. On the other hand, they have to be put onto an empirical basis, and have to be reviewed by means of the available data (translation by K. Lehmann). (Pollack, Detlef, Rückkehr des Religiösen?, p. 15)

42 Hervieu-­Léger, Danièle and Willaime, Jean-­Paul (eds), Sociologies et religion – Approches classiques, Paris 2001; Michaels, Axel (ed.), Klassiker der Religionswissenschaft – Von Friedrich Schleiermacher bis Mircea Eliade, München 2004; Beckford, James, Social Theory and Religion, Cambridge 2011. 43 Bryan Turner’s four volumes on ‘Secularization’ provide a concise introduction into those discussions: Turner, Bryan (ed.), Secularization – Volume 1–4, Los Angeles 2010. 44 Bruce, Steve, Secularization – In Defence of an Unfashionable Theory, p. 2. 45 Martin, David, The Religious and the Secular – Studies in Secularization, New York 1969. Martin, David, A General Theory of Secularization, Oxford 1978. 46 Martin, David and Catto, Rebecca, ‘The Religious and the Secular’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, London/New York 2012, pp. 373–390, here: p. 373. 47 See also: Hadden, Jeffrey K., ‘Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory’, Social Forces 65 (1987), pp. 587–611. 48 Schmidt, Thomas M. and Pitschmann, Annette (eds), Religion und Säkularisierung – Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch, Stuttgart/Weimar 2014. 49 Lübbe, Hermann, Säkularisierung – Geschichte eines ideenpolitischen Begriffs –Freiburg/München 1965; Dobbelaere, Karel, Secularization – An Analysis at Three Levels, Brüssels 2002; Lehmann, Hartmut, Säkularisierung – Der europäische Sonderweg in Sachen Religion, Göttingen 2004. 50 Casanova, José, ‘Westliche christliche Säkularisierung und Globalisierung’, in Casanova, José. (ed.), Europas Angst vor der Religion, Berlin 2009, pp. 83–119. 51 Gabriel, Karl, ‘Jenseits von Säkularisierung und Wiederkehr der Götter’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschehen 52 (2008), pp. 9–15. 52 Inter alia see, Gabriel et al. (eds), Umstrittene Säkularisierung – Soziologische und historische Analysen zur Differenzierung von Religion und Politik, Berlin 2012; Joas, Hans, Braucht der Mensch Religion? – Über Erfahrungen der Selbsttranszendenz, Freiburg im Breisgau 2004. 53 Casanova, José, Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago/London 1994. p. 211. 54 In his opus magnum ‘A Secular Age’, Taylor re-­assesses Peter Berger’s idea of the ‘heretical imperative’ by reconstructing a change ‘which takes us from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God to one in which faith, even for the staunches believer, is one human possibility among others’ (Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age, Cambridge/London 2007, p.  3) For further analyses along those lines, see Warner et al. (ed.), Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, Cambridge/London 2010. Calhoun, Craig et al., Rethinking Secularism, Oxford/London 2011. 55 A large part of the difficulties to analyse the processes of secularization, religious transformation and sacralisation in our global age along the lines of simultaneous

Resurgence debates, revisited   43 processes – rather than alternative processes – stems from the tendency to use the dichotomous analytical categories of the holy/profane, the immanent/transcendent and the religious/secular as if they were synonymous and interchangeable, whereas they really correspond to historically distinctive, in some way overlapping but not synonymous or equivalent social systems of classification (translation by K. Lehmann). (Casanova, José, ‘Westliche christliche Säkularisierung und Globalisierung’, pp. 83–119, here: 94f.) 56 In France, see Milot et al. (eds), Pluralisme religieux et citoyenneté, Rennes 2010 ; Baubérot, Jean, Les Laïcités dans le monde, 7th edn, Paris 2009; Lagrée Jacqueline and Portier, Philippe (eds), La modernité contre la religion? – Pour une nouvelle approche de la laïcité, Rennes 2010. 57 Luckmann, Thomas, The Invisible Religion – The Problem of Religion in Modern Society, New York/London 1967, p. 40. 58 Knoblauch, Hubert, Populäre Religion – Auf dem Weg in eine spirituelle Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main/New York; Wohlrab-­Sahr, Monika (ed.), Biographie und Religion – Zwischen Ritual und Selbstsuche – Frankfurt am Main/New York; Schnettler, Bernt, ‘Alltag und Religion’, in Weyle, Birgit and Gräb, Wilhelm, Religion in der modernen Lebenswelt – Erscheinungsformen und Reflektionsperspektiven, Göttingen 2006, pp. 84–100. 59 Luckmann, Thomas, The Invisible Religion, p. 114. 60 Knoblauch, Hubert, Populäre Religion, pp. 193–264. 61 Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular – Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Stanford 2003, 1f. 62 Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular, p. 16. 63 Wiebe, Donald, The Politics of Religious Studies – The continuing Conflict with Theology in the Academy, New York 1999; Masuzawa, Tomoko, The Invention of World Religions – Or, How European Universalism was presented in the Language of Pluralism, Chicago/London 2005; McCutcheon, Russell T., Critics Not Caretakers – Redescribing the public Study of Religion, New York 2001; Fitzgerald, Timothy, The Ideology of Religious Studies, New York/Oxford 2000. In addition, see the respective sections of Chapter 1 that discuss the concept of religion in greater detail. 64 Fitzgerald, Timothy, Religion and Politics in International Relations – The Modern Myth, London/New York 2011, p. 4. 65 Luhmann, Niklas, Die Religion der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main 2002; Luhmann, Niklas, Funktion Der Religion, Frankfurt am Main 1977; Caillé, Alain, Théorie anti-­ utilitariste de l’action – fragmentes d’une sociologie générale, Paris 2009  ; Caillé, Alain, ‘Nouvelles thèses sur la religion’, Revue de M.A.U.S.S. 22 (2003), pp. 318–327. Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Genèse et structure du champ religieux’, Revue française de sociologie, 12 (1971), pp. 295–334. Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Une interpretation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber’, Archives européennes de Sociologie 12 (1971), pp. 3–21. 66 Woodhead, Linda, ‘Introduction’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, London/New York 2012, pp.  1–33, here: pp.  24 and 26. 67 Tylor, Edward B., Research into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization, Chicago 1964 (1st edn, 1865). Frazer, James G., The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion, abridged edition, London 1963 (1st edn, 1922); Marret, Robert R., The Treshold of Religion, 2nd edn, London 1914. 68 Woodhead, Linda, ‘Introduction’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, Milton Park/New York 2012, pp. 1–33, here: p. 3. For more details, see Gauthier, François and Martikainen, Tuomas (eds), Religion in Consumer Society – Brands, Consumers, Markets, Farnham/Burlington 2013.

44   Resurgence debates, revisited 69 Knox, Geoffrey (2002) (ed.), Religion and Public Policy at the UN, Washington, DC (Religion Counts Report). A number of earlier analyses are so descriptive that they have not found their way into this literature: Whyte, Lyman C., International Non-­ Governmental Organizations – Their Purposes, Methods, and Accomplishments, New York 1968; Beigbeder, Yves, The Role and Status of International Humanitarian Volunteers and Organizations – The Right and Duty to Humanitarian Assistance, Dordrecht/Boston/London 1991. 70 ‘Religion Counts’ is actually linked to ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’, and the ‘Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith, and Ethics’. 71 Berger, Julia, ‘Religious Nongovernmental Organizations – An Explanatory Analysis’, in Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14 (2003), pp. 15–40. 72 Berger, Julia, ‘Religious Nongovernmental Organizations’, p. 16. A modified, French version of this article was published as Berger, Julia, ‘Les organisations non gouvernementales religieuses – Quelques pistes de recherche’, in Duriez et al. (eds), Les ONG confessionelles – Religions et action internationale, Paris 2007, pp. 23–40. 73 Weiner, Matthews, ‘Religion and the United Nations – Introduction’, CrossCurrents 60 (2010), pp. 292–296, here: p. 292. 74 The Yearbook of International Organizations is arguably the most comprehensive source of data on international organizations available and widely used for scholarly research. It defines International NGOs as ‘functioning, voluntary, non-­profit organizations with a high degree of autonomy from the state, a demonstrated international presence or orientation, and ongoing activities oriented to reasonably well-­specified goals’. ‘To identify RINGOs [Boli/Brewington . . .] applied a keyword search using 272 distinct terms and cognates related to religion to all data fields.’ (Boli, John and Brewington, David V., ‘Religious Organizations’, in Beyer, Peter and Beaman, Lori (eds), Religion, Globalization and Culture, Leiden/Boston 2007, pp.  203–231, here: p. 207. 75 Boli, John and Brewington, David V., ‘Religious Organizations’, pp. 203–231, here: pp. 207f. 76 Berger, Julia, ‘Religious Nongovernmental Organizations’, pp.  15–40; Petersen, Marie Juul ‘International Religious NGOs at the United Nations – A Study of a Group of Religious Organizations’, The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance 2010 (http:// sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847, last accessed: 2013). Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Zur Etablierung von Religionen im Kontext der Vereinten Nationen – Ein Überblick’, Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft 11 (2010), pp. 1–20. 77 Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Zur Etablierung von Religionen im Kontext’, pp.  1–20, here: pp. 7f. 78 Knox, Geoffrey (2002) (ed.), Religion and Public Policy at the UN, p. 6. 79 Clarke, Gerard, ‘Faith Matters – Faith-­based Organizations, Civil Society, and International Development’, Journal of International Development 18 (2006), pp. 835–848, here: p. 840. 80 Carrette, Jeremy and Trigeaud, Sophie-­Hélène, ‘The Religion-­secular in International Politics – The Case of “Religious” NGOs at the United Nations’, Abby, Day et al. (eds), Social Identities between the Sacred and the Secular, Farnham 2013, pp. 7–22. 81 Boehle, Josef, ‘Religious NGOs at the UN and the Millenium Development Goals – An Introduction’, Global Change, Peace & Security 22 (2010), pp.  275–296. To a large extent, these analyses are based on Boehle’s early dissertation dealing with this subject matter: Boehle, Josef, Inter-­religious Co-­operation in a Global Age, Birmingham 2010.

3 Methodical and methodological layout of the analyses

The present book contributes to discussions on the ‘resurgence of religions’ by shifting the focus away from the political sphere towards what has been described as a look into the black box of religiously affiliated organizations. In terms of empirical research design, this agenda confronts the following analyses with a number of fascinating challenges: first of all, it asks for subject matter that can serve as a good example to better understand the developments of religiously affiliated organizations. Second, the analyses need to be based upon empirical data that provides a sufficient foundation to describe the processes inside those organizations. Third, the research design needs to be able to take long-­term developments (rather than just isolated events) into consideration, so that the analyses provide space for the assessment of changes inside the data. In order to approach these challenges productively, the author decided to use a case-­study research design that is embedded into the qualitative school of social research and focuses upon detailed analyses of what has been described as Religious Non-­governmental Organizations/RNGOs in the context of the UN.1 On this basis, the present book applies a methodological layout that draws primarily from the analysis of archive material. In this sense, it is based upon longitudinal data on the construction of the UN and human rights-­related discourses inside two RNGOs (Pax Romana and the Commission of the Churches for International Affairs (CCIA)), covering a period of three decades. The present chapter intends to further explain these decisions as well as the practical implementation of the respective research design. It begins with a section that provides a short description of the overall development of the research process – from the first interest in religions and international relations up to the final research design (section 2.1). Against this background the author presents the methodological foundations of the analyses that are deeply indebted to the so-­called ‘Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse’ (SKAD (section 2.2)). The next section will reflect upon the practical approach of the analyses at hand, focusing upon the construction of the corpus of data (section 2.3) as well as the analysis of the data (section 2.4).

46   Methodical and methodological layout

3.1  Development of the research process As is the case with almost all research endeavours, the present project underwent a number of changes before reaching the stage of publication. In the present case, this process started from a very general interest of the author in the role of religions in international relations. Based upon the most recent debates on the public role of religions under global conditions,2 manifold tentative approaches were undertaken to formulate precise research questions and to open a way towards the construction of a corpus of data that eventually formed the basis for the analyses. After an initial survey of the research literature, this process started in 2005–2006 with short visits to the official archives of the United Nations in Geneva and New York City as well as a string of in-­depth expert interviews3 with RNGO representatives.4 These two trips to Switzerland and the USA were of twofold significance for the overall construction of the present project. First, the work in the official archives of the UN produced two almost contradictory results. On the one hand, the documents of the UN made it very clear that official UN institutions tend to avoid explicit references to religion. At least on the level of official documents, the UN has long been dominated by a strong secular tradition that resulted in a far-­reaching negligence of religions.5 On the other hand, the archives of the UN are full of documents coming from organizations that are officially accredited to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) label themselves as Religious Non-­governmental Organizations (RNGOs). The files and boxes of the UN archives on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the two Human Rights Covenants include multiple statements from these religiously affiliated organizations.6 Second, the expert interviews provided the author with fascinating insights into the present situation of the discussions in the context of the UN. With regard to practical procedures, as well as the long-­term perspectives of the RNGOs, they were, however, not too fruitful. For the purpose of the present project, the instrument of in-­depth expert interviews proved to be a very difficult tool for data gathering. The activities of RNGO representatives are dominated by such a degree of complex negotiations and are perceived in such a precarious way that interview partners were rarely willing (or able) to elaborate on these processes. Taken together, those initial experiences formed the basis for the following four decisions: first, they helped to focus the general research interest onto the research question that has already been outlined in the Introduction. The author narrowed down the initial interest on the role of religions in international relations – targeting primarily the UN-­related activities inside RNGOs in order to learn more about the debates on the resurgence of religions. In other words, the initial survey of data was instrumental in highlighting the activities of a very particular group of organizations that seems to be relatively unknown, while having such a significant presence – at least inside the UN – that even the most preliminary analyses suggest them for further examination. In order to grasp these processes, the author decided – second – to focus on two cases with particular relevance for early RNGO activities: Pax Romana

Methodical and methodological layout   47 (IMCS/ICMICA) and the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA). This decision was based upon a threefold rationale.7 First of all, Pax Romana and the CCIA were among the first organizations to apply for consultative status with the UN, thus providing insights into the very establishment of this setting. Second, these two particular cases stand for two major strands of Christianity (Pax Romana as a Roman Catholic lay organization and the CCIA representing the WCC as one of the major Christian umbrella organizations that was – at the time – dominated by Protestant churches) that have been central to the overall RNGO landscape right from the beginning up until today. And, of course, these two RNGOs were willing and able to open their archives for an in-­ depth analysis.8 Third, in order to analyse the developments inside the RNGOs in terms of the resurgence debates, the author started to focus upon the archive material (in a more technical sense) produced by the protagonists inside the two cases. In other words, he decided to highlight the last stage of what historians describe as the ‘walk of life of documents in organizational contexts’9 (this time, however, not in the context of state bureaucracy but rather in the context of religiously affiliated organizations). And this decision triggered the work on a, so far, rather unresearched set of data that puts the author in the position of opening up new perspectives as well as new challenges.10 Finally, the author decided to focus upon developments from the mid- 1940s (the foundation of the UN) up to the mid-­1970s (the end of the ‘long 1960s’). On the one hand, this time span offers the opportunity to have a look at the defining phase of the cooperation between the RNGOs and the UN, thus highlighting the emergence of the respective structures as well as the respective discourses. On the other hand, it covers the entire time period up to the major social changes of the 1960s and 1970s traditionally associated with the establishment of religions in public space. In this sense, it provides the opportunity to analyse the changes that formed the basis for the developments of the 1960s. Based upon these initial decisions, the following years saw a number of shorter visits by the author (in total amounting to about five months) to the official archives of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Geneva and one more extended stay (of approximately six months) at Fribourg to look at the UN-­ related documents of Pax Romana.11 In parallel, the author included a wider range of further data in the analyses. The two most extensive sources were: (1) a wide range of journals and books (particularly autobiographies) that are directly linked to the field, and (2) official publications and listings provided by the UN help to further assess overall RNGO developments. In the course of this process, the author took the decision to use the so- called ‘Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse’ (SKAD) – primarily established by a group of scholars linked to German sociologist Reiner Keller – as the methodological foundation of the analyses.

48   Methodical and methodological layout

3.2  Methodological foundation: sociology of knowledge approach to discourse In order to understand the decision to use the SKAD, one first has to keep in mind that the notion of discourse is one of those academic categories that look back upon a disturbing history of different approaches, schools, and definitions.12 In the Academic Study of Religions, references to discourse analyses are, however, a rather new phenomenon.13 Closely linked to a critical theoretical approach, authors such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida perceived religion first and foremost as one of the ‘ideological’ phenomena that need to be deconstructed.14 This basic conviction initially made it quite difficult for scholars of religions to apply a discourse approach to the study of religions. During the last three decades, this situation has been changing fundamentally. With regard to the general construction of its subject matters and its methodological foundation, discourse analysis has become an integral aspect of the analysis of religion. In the German Religionswissenschaft, Hans G. Kippenberg15 and Kocku von Stuckrad16 started to introduce a discourse approach in the early 1980s and have recently been joined by authors that see themselves in the tradition of post-­colonial and subaltern studies.17 In Anglo-­Amer­ican academia, it is primarily the so-­called Toronto School of Religious Studies18 that has been pushing the perspective of discourse analysis, with the aim of deconstructing the very notion of religion and explicating the power relations underlying the use of this concept.19 In the context of these very distinct discussions, the analyses at hand see themselves in a particular tradition that can be constructed from the early works of Roland Barthes up to the more recent analyses of the scholars of religions around Bruce Lincoln.20 In doing so, they focus upon a reconstruction of what might be called ‘religious discourses’ (rather than ‘discourses on religion’).21 The programme associated with Reiner Keller and his Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD),22 provides a methodological basis that is particularly suited to putting this focus into practice. This fit is already based upon the very general concept of discourse Keller puts at the centre of his considerations. In the context of SKAD, discourse is perceived: as performative statement practices which constitute reality orders and also produce power effects in a conflict-­ridden network of social actors, institutional dispositifs, and knowledge systems. It is emphasized that discourse is concrete and material, it is not an abstract idea or free floating line of argument.23 With regard to the analyses of the RNGOs, this particular approach is especially helpful, in so far as the SKAD concept of discourse puts the emphasis upon concrete social actors (or groups of actors) that try to enforce their ‘performative statement practices’. In other words, it first puts the emphasis on concrete actors and their power to dominate specific discussions and debates. These discussions

Methodical and methodological layout   49 and debates form – second – the basis for the construction of particular discourses. In this respect, SKAD systematically links discourse analysis to the analysis of social action and vice versa. From this starting-­point, SKAD highlights the processual side of the assertion of power inside the construction of social reality without questioning the possibility of reconstructing these constructions on the basis of empirical documents.24 In this way, Keller’s concept of discourse helps to assess the complex structure of discourses in a twofold manner. First, it draws attention to the manifold actors or agents of any construction of reality and, second, to the possible conflicts linked to these constructions in a given setting and expressed via particular storylines, practices, or coalitions. To put this more generally: Diskurse bilden ‘Welt’ nicht ab, sondern konstituieren Realität in spezifischer Weise. Die gesellschaftlichen Akteure, die als Sprecher in Diskursen in Erscheinung treten, die jeweiligen Sprecherpositionen besetzen und mitunter ex-­oder implizite Diskurskoalitionen bilden, verfügen über unterschiedliche und ungleich verteilte Ressourcen der Artikulation und Resonanzerzeugung.25 This implies that all these processes can, however, only be analysed indirectly – via ‘documents’ in the widest sense (including, for example, traditional written documents and all types of visual documents, as well as documents of practical interaction such as mind protocols). Along the lines of the SKAD approach, it has to be taken into account that constructions of reality tend to ‘manifest’ themselves in a wide array of different forms, and archives are one place where it is possible to find those manifestations in documents. Die sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursforschung interessiert sich für Aussagen, Praktiken und Dispositive als Manifestationen der strukturierten Prozessierung kontingenter gesellschaftlicher Wissensvorräte in Diskursen. [. . .] Solche Wissensordnungen manifestieren sich in sprachlichen, bildlichen, handlungspraktischen oder materialen Formen.26 Taken together, the above considerations help to further underline a twofold distinction that has already been introduced in the previous chapter and is of particular significance for the practical analyses of RNGOs: perceiving this type of religiously affiliated organizations as agents that attempt to enforce particular constructions of reality, one has to underline the significance of the different parties inside the RNGOs that facilitate their overall activities. The RNGOs are not monolithic blocks and their UN-­related activities are actually based upon rather complex and controversial constructions of discourses that need to be taken into account. In the analyses at hand, this overall approach translates into practical procedures that are applied to a wide scope of empirical material, focusing upon (1) the construction of specific discourses (Spezialdiskurse) with explicit links to the UN

50   Methodical and methodological layout and human rights, as well as (2) the organizational structures inside the two cases that facilitate the construction of these discourses. In order to do this, the analyses had to go through a twofold process that started with the construction of a specific corpus of data before approaching the analysis of these data. Both steps will now be spelled out in more detail.

3.3  Construction of the corpus of data and analysis of data In traditional approaches to discourse analysis, the general notion of ‘the archive’ plays an important role in as far as it highlights the significance of sets of documents or data for the construction of tradition,27 as well as the power relations that form the basis of every compilation of documents or data (in the widest sense), and constitute these constructions.28 In the context at hand, this translates first of all into the necessity to explicate the construction of what Keller calls ‘the corpus of data’ that can never be comprehensive, and thus needs to be particularly accessible to critical assessment.29 As has already been indicated, the following analyses are based upon the data collected in the formal archives of Pax Romana and the CCIA. As far as the CCIA is concerned, the author came to visit the archives right in the middle of a process of reconstruction that is still ongoing.30 During his first visit in 2008, the archives consisted of around 1,400 boxes (covering the time period from the mid-­1940s to the mid-­1970s) that can be divided into three major sections: (1) formal organization, (2) general topics, and (3) country files. Along the lines of the research questions, the author decided to focus upon the boxes on general topics and formal organization and did not access the country files that do, however, seem to contain highly interesting data for further analyses. As far as the Pax Romana is concerned, these ‘archives’ rather have to be described with the technical term of ‘registrature’.31 During the 1990s, Pax Romana moved its General Secretariat from Fribourg (Switzerland) to Geneva (Switzerland) (closer to the UN). In the course of this process, the staff handed approximately 1,300 boxes and folders (together with a list of 100 pages specifying the inscriptions on the folders) over to the Bibliothèque cantonale et universitaire (BCU) of Fribourg. These boxes and folders cover the whole of Pax Romana’s history from the early twentieth century up until the late 1980s including major sections on (1) the UN and other NGOs, (2) internal decision processes, and (3) country files. Once again, without references to the country files, these were the sections the author focused on. To put this more practically: Both archives were in such a condition that the author could not use reliable, systematic searching aids to access the data. Correspondingly, he examined all the boxes and folders with a distinct and explicit reference to the UN. This adds up to more than 100 folders in the case of Pax Romana as well as in the case of the CCIA. In order to structure this process, the author kept a ‘log of all the boxes he had a look at’ as well as an extensive ‘research diary’ that provided an opportunity for ad hoc analyses as well as the development of strategies for data collection.32

Methodical and methodological layout   51 Using those particular tools, the whole process was confronted with the typical problem of analyses that are based upon work in this type of modern archive system. Unlike the historians focusing on Ancient or Medieval History, historians of Modern History tend to be confronted with an overwhelming amount of data, rather than with the problem of insufficient sources.33 In order to cope with this particular problem, the corpus of data had further to be consolidated in four ways: 1 2 3 4

The data collection was restricted to the official archives of the two cases, neglecting sources in other archives as well as the majority of personal data accessible. The author narrowed the analyses down to those boxes and documents that had an explicit reference to UN-­related activities or to activities with an explicit link to human rights. The corpus includes UN and human rights-­related documents produced in the context of the main events by the governing bodies of Pax Romana and the CCIA. The analyses had to be reduced to those documents that the actors framed at the time as being of systematic significance for these debates.

Even under these restrictions, the archives in Geneva and Fribourg proved to be fascinating pools of data. They cover the whole wide spectrum of material Anthony Brundage calls manuscript sources,34 and that a classical German handbook for the study of modern history differentiates in the following way: • •

•

• • •

Files: „Gruppen zusammengehöriger Schriftstücke, die bei der Vorbereitung oder Durchführung von Rechtsgeschäften entstanden sind. Darunter können Urkunden enthalten sein“.35 Notes: „verhältnismäßig formlose Kurzmitteilungen, die auf den sachlichen Wortlaut reduziert sind und inhaltlich meist Vorgänge behandeln, die eine diplomatische Vertretung der Regierung eines anderen Staates lediglich zur Kenntnis bringt“.36 Records: „die schriftliche Aufzeichnung einer Besprechung. Über das Verhältnis Aussteller – Empfänger lässt sich nichts sagen, weil Protokolle zum ‚Binnenlauf ‘ der Institution gehören, in der sie entstehen; einen Empfänger haben sie nicht“.37 File notes: „die formlose, meist kurze Aufzeichnung von wichtigen Vorgängen, die nur mündlich oder durch Beobachtung zur Kenntnis gelangt sind und sonst keinen schriftlichen Niederschlag gefunden haben“.38 Memoranda (Promemoria): „enthalten die an niemand gerichtete, daher auf Kuralien verzichtende Beurteilung bestimmter Sachprobleme durch eine Amtsperson und sind meist nicht zur Veröffentlichung bestimmt“.39 Letters (or rather hybrids between letters and notes): „schriftliche Mitteilung persönlichen Inhalts, gewechselt zwischen Partnern, die in rein persönlicher, nicht amtlich oder geschäftlich bedingter Beziehung zueinander stehen –

52   Methodical and methodological layout unabhängig davon, ob und welche Ämter oder Funktionen sie anderweitig begleiten“.40 In sum, the corpus of data that forms the basis of the following analyses can be characterized using the image of two concentric circles. First, it includes the data from the archives (or rather registratures) of the two cases, opening up a very broad spectrum of documents. Second, it takes the wider spectrum of accessible data into consideration, using the respective documents as a background rather than putting them into the centre of the analysis. Based upon these sets of data, the analyses followed a theoretical sampling strategy.41 This process showed that the data collected from the wider circle added further detail information to the archive material as well as secondary interpretations of certain developments from a later point of view. They did not, however, add any further subject-­matter to the data covered by the archive material. In other words, the research process itself suggested a certain degree of saturation of the data that can be achieved by accessing these sources.42 This fascinating corpus of data was analysed along the following lines.

3.4  Analysis of the data Every discourse analysis is based upon the fact that a corpus of data has to go through a process of selection. In no way is it possible to access all the data that constitute a specific discourse.43 In order to deal with this problem, the project at hand applied three distinct rationales. First, due to the structure of the archives, the analyses started from the categorizations of the producers of the documents, thus highlighting their respective contemporary framings. Second, the decisions for the analysis of single documents were based upon the construction of the authors, heading towards the same direction. Third, this whole process took place under the condition of ongoing reflection in the ‘research diary’, with the constant objective of coping with the problem of a surplus supply of data. As far as the inner circle of data is concerned, this general rationale finally led to a very broad corpus of documents that were digitalized by the author, thus becoming accessible for more extensive analyses. In the case of Pax Romana, the final set of data comprises around 10,000 documents (from short notes and detailed letters up to extended memoranda and documentations) in fourteen ring binders. As far as the CCIA is concerned, the database consists of sixteen ring binders with approximately 12,000 documents. In order to be able to approach this set of data, the author had to edit the material in a rather time consuming way to make it accessible for further analysis. In terms of methodology, this is where the notion of ‘the case’ needs to be introduced in more detail. As far as the present project is concerned, the UNand human rights-­related discourses inside Pax Romana and the CCIA are – strictly speaking – the cases that are analysed in greater detail. (Even though, the analyses included a much wider spectrum of data highlighting the general history of the two organizations, the history of the different individuals also involved

Methodical and methodological layout   53 the much wider socio-­cultural context.) The author presupposes that the in-­depth interpretation of these two cases actually forms a sufficient basis to formulate more general hypotheses. Using the formulation of one of the international protagonists of the case-­study approach: Implicit in most social scientific notions of case analysis is the idea that the objects of investigation are similar enough and separate enough to permit treating them as comparable instances of the same general phenomenon. At a minimum, most social scientists believe that their methods are powerful enough to overwhelm the uniqueness inherent in objects and events in the social world.44 Starting from this point of view, the analyses at hand were guided by a second general conviction that has become a commonplace in most handbooks on qualitative research methods. Case analyses need to be guided by the chronology of the events.45 In other words, in order to enable the researchers to reconstruct the general layout of the cases as well as to identify changes that are significant for the understanding of the respective developments, case analyses need to follow the line of events. Translating these considerations into practical research, the author followed a differentiated procedure. The process of formal analysis started with the act of printing the documents collected (and digitalized) at the archives and providing them with markers that allow the identification of their precise location in the archives. After this formal step, the author brought the documents into chronological order inter alia indexing (as far as possible) the author(s) of the documents as well as the date of their production. This procedure led to the compilation of chronological files that were completed by adding further data including: • • • •

major journal articles documents from the governing bodies of the respective organizations further published material information from the interviews.

From this basis, the analysis followed a two-­step approach.46 First, the author identified those events the contemporaries constructed as central with regard to the UN and human rights (thus allowing the analyses of failure as well as a focus on shifts). In other words, this first step focused upon the reconstructions of the self-­interpretations of historical actors at a given time. And this primary construction formed the starting-­point for the identification of single documents requiring closer analysis and highlighting the modes of construction. In a second step, the analyses focused on the changes in the construction of these events over time. At this point, the author looked more closely at processes that preceded the formulation of the central documents, highlighting (1) the explicit description of  these processes as well as (2) factual changes in the concrete formulations.

54   Methodical and methodological layout Put differently, this second step targets the dynamics of constructions of central events over time, actually approximating the approach of historians.47 Taken together, these two steps are tied to the general ideas of SKAD in as far as they link all these documents to the construction of discourses – first, inside the single RNGOs and, second, in the wider context of the UN. On this level, the analyses fell back upon the above editorial processes. They highlighted the role of the specific actors (and coalitions of actors) involved in the production of the documents as well as the rhetorical strategies used to enforce a particular discourse. Focusing on processes such as the voicing or silencing of particular discourse positions, as well as the power or powerlessness of specific actors, the author was able to re-­construct these cases in a dense and multifaceted way.48 In the course of this procedure, the author had a closer look at the organizational setting of the phenomena in question – primarily in the context of the RNGOs and secondarily in the context of the UN in particular and international relations in general. In order to do so, he focused upon documents regulating procedures inside organizational settings (e.g. charters or statutes) as well as the practical side of these processes, inter alia laid down in ways of communication or casual references to practical power relations. This organizational component actually adds a particular perspective to the analyses at hand that is highly significant with regard to the interpretation of the discourse inside the RNGOs, even though it is frequently forgotten. This whole process finally led to the construction of phases that characterize the development of the two cases. The constructions of these phases were finally confronted with the general development of the RNGOs inside the UN context, thus assessing the usefulness of the phases for the wider understanding of the RNGOs and providing a basis for those generalizations that form the analytical core of the whole project. The outcomes of these different steps will be presented in the following chapters devoted to (1) the context of the UN, (2) the case analyses, and (3) the final chapters of this book, which will be devoted to a two-­step generalization of the results of the case analyses.

Notes   1 Seal, Clive (ed.), Researching Society and Culture, 2nd edn, Los Angeles/London/ New Delhi/Singapore 2004; Przyborski, Aglaja and Wohlrab-­Sahr, Monika, Qualitative Sozialforschung, Ein Arbeitsbuch, 3rd edn, München 2010; Lamnek, Siegfried, Qualitative Sozialforschung – Lehrbuch, 5th edn, Weinheim/Basel 2010.   2 Kippenberg et al., ‘Varieties of Deprivatization – Revisiting Religious Communities in the Public Sphere’, Journal of Religion in Europe 6 (2013), pp. 133–142. Introduction to a ‘focal point’ in the same edition of the journal.   3 Gläser, Jochen and Laudel, Grit, Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, 4th edn, Wiesbaden 2010.   4 The author had the honour to discuss his project with representatives of the following RNGOs: Baha’i International Community/BIC (Geneva), Brahma Kumaris (New York City), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs/CCIA, former ­Director (Geneva), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs/CCIA, present-­day ­Director (Geneva), David M. Kennedy Center and the International Center for Law and

Methodical and methodological layout   55 Religion Studies/ICLRS (Geneva), Franciscans International (Geneva), Friends World Council for Consultation/FWCC (London), Kolping International (Köln), Soka Gakkai International (Geneva), Special Rapporteur for Religious Freedom, personal assistant (Geneva), Unitarians Universalists (New York City), World Religions for Peace/WCRP (New York City), World Vision (New York City).   5 See: Early UN documents linked to human rights: A/2929; E/CN.4/37; E/CN.4/SR.5, 9; GA Res. 421 (V); GA Res. 543 (VI).   6 See: Letters sent to the Human Rights Commission in the Geneva UN Archives: SOA 317.   7 Kelle, Udo and Kluge, Susann, Vom Einzelfall zum Typus – Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung, Opladen 1999.   8 Actually, the author contacted a number of RNGOs that fit the above criteria but were not willing to cooperate under these conditions for the project. To name but two examples: Baha’i International Community, World Jewish Congress.   9 Brandt, Ahasver von, Werkzeuge des Historikers – Eine Einführung in die Historischen Hilfswissenschaften, 13th edn, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1992. 10 Even though History (as an academic discipline) plays a significant role in the self-­ description of Religious Studies, scholars of religion have frequently limited their concrete analyses to edited source material (the so-called ‘sacred texts’). Even among the conditions of an accelerating process of internal differentiation, the analysis of archival data is still primarily limited to Church historians, rather than scholars with a Religious Studies point of view (Stausberg, Michael and Engler, Steven (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, London/New York 2011; Kurth, Stefan and Lehmann, Karsten, Religionen erforschen – Kulturwissenschaftliche Methoden in der Religionswissenschaft, Wiesbaden 2011). 11 Moreover, the author worked extensively in the archive of the Quakers in Britain (in London), which contains the documents of the Friends World Council for Consultation/FWCC. Unfortunately, the analysis of this set of data has not been finalized yet. 12 Gee, James Paul, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis – Theory and Method, 3rd edn, New York/London 2001; Chimombo, Moira P.F. and Roseberry, Robert L., The Power of Discourse – An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, New York/London 1998; Keller et al. (eds), Diskurs – Macht – Subjekt – Theorie und Empirie von Subjektivierung in der Diskursforschung, Wiesbaden 2012. 13 For a recent exception, see Monika Schrimpf, Self-­Cultivation and Guidance to Living in Contemporary Japanese New Religions – A Discourse Analytical Approach, Habilitation, Universität Bayreuth, 2010; Behloul, Samuel M., Die Ordnung der Religion – Religionsgeschichte und Religionsgegenwart in diskurs-­analytischer Perspektive, Habilitation, Universität Luzern, 2009. 14 This basic approach is about to change: Derrida, Jacques and Vattimo, Gianni, Die Religion, Frankfurt am Main 2001. 15 Kippenberg, Hans G., ‘Diskursive Religionswissenschaft – Gedanken zu einer Religionswissenschaft, die weder auf einer allgemein gültigen Definition von Religion noch auf einer Überlegenheit von Wissenschaft basiert’, in Gladigow, Burkhard and Kippenberg, Hans G. (eds), Neue Ansätze in der Religionswissenschaft, München 1983, pp. 9–28. 16 Stuckrad, Kocku von, ‘The Discoursive Study of Religion – From States of Mind to Communicative Action’, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 15 (2003), pp.  255–271; Stuckrad, Kocku von, ‘Reflections on the Limits of Reflection – An Invitation to the Discoursive Study of Religion’, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 22 (2010), pp. 156–169. 17 Bergunder, Michael, ‘Was ist Religion? – Kulturwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zum Gegenstand der Religionswissenschaft’, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 2012 (19), pp.  3–55; Nehring, Andreas, ‘Das Ende der Missionsgeschichte Mission als ­kulturelles Paradigma zwischen klassischer Missionstheologie und postkolonialer

56   Methodical and methodological layout Theoriebildung’ Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 27 (2010), pp.  161–193. Haker et al., ‘Postkoloniale Theologie’, Concilium 49 (2013), pp. 131–134. 18 McCutcheon, Russell T., ‘Critical Trends in the Study of Religion in the United States’, in Antes et al. (eds), New Approaches to the Study of Religion 1 – Regional, critical, and historical Approaches, Berlin/New York 2008, pp.  317–343. Wiebe, Donald, The Politics of Religious Studies – The Continuing Conflict with Theology in the Academy, New York 1999. 19 For the wider background, see Stausberg, Michael and Engler, Steven (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion. 20 Lincoln, Bruce, Discourse and the Construction of Society – Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification, Harvard 1989. 21 Murphy, Tim, ‘Discourse’, in Braun, Willi and McCutcheon, Russell (eds), Guide to the Study of Religion, London/New York 2000, pp. 396–408; Hjelm, Titus, ‘Discourse Analysis’, in Stausberg, Michael and Engler, Steven (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, pp. 125–150. 22 Keller, Reiner, Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse – Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms, 3rd edn, Wiesbaden 2011. 23 Keller, Reiner, ‘The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse’, Human Studies 24 (2011), pp. 43–65, here: p. 48. 24 This follows Keller, Reiner, Das interpretative Paradigma – Eine Einführung, Wiesbaden 2012. In this respect, the analyses at hand part from the point of view presented by authors such as McCutcheon and Fitzgerald: Fitzgerald, Timothy, The Ideology of Religious Studies, New York/Oxford 2000; Arnal, William and McCutcheon, Russell T., The Sacred is the Profane – The Political Nature of ‘Religion’, Oxford 2013. 25 Discourses do not depict ‘the world’, they rather construct reality in a specific way. The social actors that appear as speakers in discourses that occupy the respective positions of speakers and that sometimes form – explicit or implicit – coalitions, these actors have distinct and uneven resources at their command to articulate their position and to generate resonance (translation by K. Lehmann). (Keller, Reiner, Diskursforschung – Eine Einführung für Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen, 4th edn, Wiesbaden 2011, p. 67) 26

Discourse research that perceives itself in the tradition of the social sciences is interested in statements, practices and dispositions - in as far as they manifest the structured processing of contingent stocks of social knowledge [gesellschaftliche Wissensvorräte] in discourses. These orders of knowledge [Wissensordnungen] manifest themselves in the form of languages, images, social practices or material objects (translation by K. Lehmann). (Ibid., p. 69)

27 Particularly interesting with regard to religion, see Hervieu-­Léger, Danièle, La religion pour mémoire, Paris 1993; Hobsbawn, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge 1983; Masuzawa, Tomoko, The Invention of World Religions – Or, how European Universalism was preserved in the Language of Pluralism, Chicago/London 2005. More general of course: Foucault, Michel, Les mots et les choses – Une archéologie des sciences humaines, Paris 1966. 28 Brundage, Anthony, Going to the Sources – A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 4th edn, Wheeling 2008, here: pp. 1–18; Brenner-­Wilczek et al., Einführung in die moderne Archivarbeit, Darmstadt 2006, here: pp. 12–28. 29 Silverman, David (ed.), Qualitative Research – Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd edn, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi 2011; Flick, Uwe (ed.), Qualitative Sozialforschung – Eine Einführung, Reinbek/Berlin 2007. 30 This is – unfortunately – causing problems in terms of the location of single docu-

Methodical and methodological layout   57 ments: as far as the indexes are concerned, the citations refer exclusively to the signatures that were on the respective boxes during the time of the analysis. The archivists promised the author, that it will be possible to track back these references under the newly emerging system, too. 31 Brandt, Ahasver von, Werkzeuge des Historikers – Eine Einführung in die Historischen Hilfswissenschaften, 13th edn, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1992, p. 113. 32 In this respect, the analyses are not too far away from what Hubert Knoblauch proposes in Knoblauch, Hubert, Qualitative Religionsforschung – Religionsethnographie in der eigenen Gesellschaft, Paderborn 2003. 33 Brenner-­Wilczek, Sabine et al., Einführung in die moderne Archivarbeit, Darmstadt 2006, here: pp. 99–129. 34 Brundage, Anthony, Going to the Sources – A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 4th edn, Wheeling 2008, pp. 9–21. 35 Opgenoorth, Ernst and Schulz, Günther, Einführung in das Studium der Neueren Geschichte, 7th edn, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 2010, p. 100. 36 Ibid., p. 120. 37 Ibid., p. 123. 38 Ibid., p. 124. 39 Ibid., p. 124. 40 • Files: Groups of related written documents that develop in the preparation or implementation of legal transactions. They might contain official documents. • Notes: Relatively informal memos that are reduced to factual wording and that are predominantly related to processes a diplomatic mission transmits to the government of a different country ‘for your information’. • Records: The written transcript of a meeting. It is impossible to say something about the relationship between the originator and the recipient because records tend to belong to the ‘internal communication [Binnenlauf]’ of the institution they are emerging from. They do not have any explicit addressee. • File notes: An informal (and most of the time brief ) record of important operations that have exclusively come to the notice of the author verbally or via observation. Without the ‘file note’, these operations would not have left any written trace. • Memoranda [Promemoria]: Documents that contain the assessment of a specific, factual problem by a public official. Most of the time they are not intended to be publicized and therefore abandon any formal titles, salutations etc. [Kuralien]. • Letters (or rather hybrids between letters and notes): Written messages of a personal nature – exchanged among partners that are in a purely personal, and non-­ official or non-­business related relationship. Letters are independent from the offices and functions these partners might occupy otherwise (translation by K. Lehmann). (Ibid., p. 79) 41 See Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L., The Discouvery of Grounded Theory – Strategies for Qualitative Research, Piscataway 1967, especially Chapter III. Urquhart, Cathy, Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research – A practical Guide, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi 2013. 42 These observations notwithstanding, one always has to keep in mind that this corpus is not only the product of the actors in the field but also of the decisions taken by the author (and the archivists, etc.), Keller, Reiner, ‘Diskurse und Dispositive analysieren – Die Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse als Beitrag zu einer wissensanalytischen Profilierung der Diskursforschung’, in Historical Social Research 33 (2008), pp. 73–107.

58   Methodical and methodological layout 43 Machin, David and Mayr, Andrea, How to do Critical Discourse Analysis, London/ Thousand Oaks 2012. 44 Ragin, Charles C., ‘Introduction: Cases of “What is a case?” ’, in Ragin, Charles C. and Becker, Howard S. (eds), What Is A Case? – Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge 1992, pp. 1–17, here: pp. 1f. 45 Inter alia see Luckmann, Thomas, ‘The Communicative Construction of Reality and Sequential Analysis – A personal Reminiscence’, Qualitative Sociological Review 9 (2013), pp. 40–46. 46 As far as this general distinction is concerned, see: Bohnsack, Ralf, Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung – Einführung in qualitative Methoden, 8th edn, Opladen/Farmington Hills 2010, here: pp.  31–68; Nohl, Arnd-­Michael, Interview und Dokumentarische Methode – Anleitungen für die Forschungspraxis, 4th edn, Wiesbaden 2012. 47 Metzler, Gabriele, Einführung in das Studium der Zeitgeschichte, Paderborn 2004. 48 Jäger, Siegfried, Kritische Diskursanalyse – Eine Einführung, 6th edn, Münster 2012; Fairclough, Norman, Analysing Discourse – Textual Analysis for social Research, London/New York 2003.

4 Religions and human rights in the context of the UN

On the basis of the previous theoretical and methodological remarks, the chapter at hand sets the tone for the empirical part of the present analysis. In order to do so, it introduces historic developments from the mid-­1940s to the mid-­1970s that form the background for the two case analyses that will be presented in the next two chapters. Generally speaking, these historic developments can be substantiated in very different ways. From the point of view of the UN, the developments in question span the period from its foundation after World War II to the second peak of the UN’s development activities, as well as its emerging commitment in the fight against racism.1 As far as the Western history of religions is concerned, the analyses focus upon a time frame that saw the first waves of post-­war globalization,2 an increasing tendency towards individualization,3 and the earliest phase of what José Casanova calls the de-­privatization of religions in public space.4 Or to apply categories of popular culture: the analyses range from the end of the classical jazz age, up to the emergence of hard and progressive rock music – from Miles Davis to Led Zeppelin.5 To link these overall developments to the agenda of the present analyses, the following chapter will be divided into four major sections. It will start with a look at the early developments of the UN as a complex organization (section 4.1). On this basis, the chapter will underline two dimensions of these developments that are of particular significance for the case analyses – the culmination of human rights debates (section 4.2) and the formal place of religions (section 4.3). Finally, the ensuing considerations will describe the accreditation process of the RNGOs (section 4.4).

4.1  The context of the United Nations (UN) Even the most superficial attempt to survey the history of the UN makes it clear that the role and significance of this organization has been controversial since its establishment on 24 October 1945. While the first UN activities in the aftermath of World War II saw a high degree of support for the general idea of a worldwide federation of states (inter alia mirrored in the wide media coverage of the first meetings of the General Assembly as well as in the debates on the Universal

60   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN Declaration of Human Rights), the late 1940s were already dominated by increasing disputes about the concrete activities of the UN.6 And these disputes continue today. At the moment, the spectrum of support and critique ranges from the desire for a ‘civilization’ of world politics by a ‘world parliament’ to objections of wide-­ranging and ongoing corruption, powerlessness, and inefficiency.7 These opposing assessments of the UN are also reflected in the academic debates. Analyses with an explicit focus upon the UN tend to underline the significance of this organization with regard to peacekeeping, standard setting, as well as aid and development.8 At the same time, the majority of general introductions to international relations – especially in the USA – ascribe only limited space to the discussion of the UN, highlighting its restricted power to put concrete policies into practice.9 And even the more detailed analyses are not able to present a concise picture – be it with regard to the power relations inside the UN, or its influence on certain conflicts, developments, endeavours, etc. The only certainty about the UN appears to be that it represents an almost comprehensive, worldwide federation of – at the moment – 193 states, with various commissions and agencies collecting information, formulating opinions, and promulgating declarations or (lawfully binding) conventions.10 Under these conditions, the following reflections will not even try to add a contribution to the debates upon the general character of the UN. The present approach is much more selective and instrumental. On the basis of the existing literature, the upcoming sections sketch the complex character of an institution RNGOs chose (and choose) to work in, and link this characterization to the role of RNGOs inside this particular context. 4.1.1  Complex character of the UN As far as this rather specific agenda is concerned, the present section starts from a position that can be located between the opposing assessments quoted above. Following the German historian Madeleine Herren, it will be argued that – historically speaking – the UN has to be seen as an international organization that is characterized by its establishment between the League of Nations (as the first attempt to establish a worldwide federation of states) and the intersections of modern international relations:11 Die beispielgebende Rolle der UNO leitete sich zum einen aus ihrer schieren Größe und dem im Vergleich zum Völkerbund bedeutend gewachsenen Handlungsspielraum ab. [. . .] Ihre Hauptaufgabe, die Sicherung des Friedens, schließt die Anerkennung der Menschenrechte ein und wird durch die Vollversammlung und den mit Vetorecht ausgestatteten Sicherheitsrat umgesetzt. [. . .] Die UNO ist überdies Kernstück eines gelegentlich als ‘UN family’ beschriebenen Konglomerats aus verschiedenen internationalen Organisationen. [. . . Schließlich setzte das System der Vereinten Nationen] mit der Unterscheidung zwischen gouvernementaler und nongouvernementaler Internationalität eine Zäsur mit weit reichenden Folgen.12

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   61 This short paragraph already mentions the major subject-­matter one needs to keep in mind in order to understand the UN as a complex setting for RNGO activities: Herren underlines the end of World War II as the forming context that moulded the UN in two ways: on the one hand, the UN was influenced by the particular focus upon ‘peace’ that dominated the mid-­1940s as well as the significance of human rights as one of the major discourses (especially in North America) used to legitimize the war against Nazi Germany and its allies.13 On the other hand, the organizational pattern of the UN was (and to some extent still is) encapsulating the power relations of the mid-­1940s with their strong emphasis upon Europe and North America in general and the Allies of World War II (primarily the Soviet Union, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and France) in particular. In this sense, the early developments of the UN confronted the RNGOs with a two-­layered organizational matrix that was, on the one hand, rapidly expanding around the six principal organs: • • • • • •

the General Assembly as the most representative organ of the UN the Security Council that is widely perceived as its most powerful organ the General Secretariat being the administrative center of the UN the International Court of Justice in charge of UN jurisdiction between states the Trusteeship Council (at the moment not active) formally administering the trust territories, and finally the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) dealing with the wide field of global economic and social affairs.14

With regard to the activities of the RNGOs, the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is of threefold significance. First, all NGO activities are formally linked to this organ. Second, the work of most of the specialized agencies is coordinated by ECOSOC. Finally, the majority of the functional commissions the RNGOs try to cooperate with, are established by this Council. In other words, the ECOSOC formed very much the centre of RNGO activities (certainly during the first decades of their cooperation with the UN), even though it probably is among the less powerful organs of the UN.15 On the other hand, the UN almost immediately became the centre of an expanding net of so-­called ‘specialized agencies’ (and a respective body of international civil servants) that have been addressing a huge set of topics. Some of these agencies were actually founded before the establishment of the UN and even the League of Nations (most prominently the ‘International Telegraph Union’ (1865), the ‘International Meteorological Organization (1873), and the International Labour Organization’ (1919)). The majority of the specialized agencies were, however, created during the first decade after the foundation of the UN, with the Bretton Woods Institutions (such as the ‘International Monetary Fund’, and the ‘World Bank’), the ‘United Nations Childrens’ Fund’ (UNICEF ), the ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’ (UNESCO), or the ‘World Health Organization’ (WHO) being among the best known.

62   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN Taken together, this two-­layered organizational structure also gives an idea of the manifold topics the UN has dealt with over the years. Besides peace and human rights, the UN inter alia contributed to major global debates upon technical standard-­setting, issues of social cooperation, questions of the monetary system, humanitarian aid, etc. Even though the concrete impact of these debates is contested, the very character of the UN’s contributions added to the increasing establishment of the UN as a frame of reference for further public debates.16 Even some of the most severe critics of the UN do not hesitate to refer to the empirical data collected by its specialized agencies. And this whole set-­up has been under constant change. Even though the general structure of the UN seems to be rather stable, the underlying processes are by all means dynamic. It is probably not too much of an exaggeration to describe the history of the UN as a history of crises that very much dominated its development and triggered different waves of modification and re-­modification, frequently discussed under the label of UN reform.17 To mention but a few examples: the increasing antagonism between the political blocs, the international and national conflicts the UN was confronted with, the major power shifts in the course of de-­colonialization processes, the finances of the UN that are continuously threatened by a relatively tight budget, and so on and so forth.18 With regard to the analyses at hand, one has to add yet another strand of major changes that was already alluded to in the last section of Herren’s general characterization – the UN’s increasing significance as a link between governmental and Non-­governmental Organizations.19 4.1.2  UN and Non-­governmental Organizations (NGOs) In order to understand the relationship between the UN and what is frequently called the ‘NGO community’, it is helpful to start from a simple statistical observation: the history of the UN is accompanied by a steady growth of the absolute numbers of NGOs.20 In their book Constructing World Culture, John Boli and George M. Thomas reconstruct the overall developments of NGOs (in a wider sense), highlighting three distinct waves of their development (first around 1945, then during the mid-­1970s, and finally after 1990) as well as the manifold fields these organizations are active in: Since 1850 more than 35,000 private, not-­for-profit organizations with an international focus have debuted on the world stage. Associations, societies, foundations, unions, committees, clubs, leagues, conferences, groups, federations, conventions – the range is extraordinary. [. . .] Most are highly specialized, drawing members worldwide from a particular occupation, technical field, branch of knowledge, industry, hobby, or sport, to promote and regulate their respective areas of concern.21 Throughout this long history, some of these NGOs established strong links with the UN – and vice versa. Accordingly, the ‘United Nations Intellectual History

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   63 Project’ (UNIHP) has steadily been making the point that NGOs are becoming an integral aspect of the UN. The researchers of UNIHP even went so far as to add a third dimension to Inis L. Claude’s classical distinction of the ‘two United Nations’23 that introduces precisely the NGO aspect to the very core of the UN: 22

Having seen and analyzed much more [in the course of the UNIHP] we recognize that there have been at most times and for most issues three ­distinct UNs in operation: the UN of the governments, the UN of the staff  members, and the UN of closely associated NGOs, experts, and consultants.24 And this interaction between NGOs and the UN goes far beyond a merely formal relationship. Whereas the UN was – over most of its history – generally characterized with reference to the question of international power relations, authors such as S. Neil MacFarlane, Yuen Foong Khong, Olav Stokke, and Michael Ward underline that the debates around human security,25 development,26 and even statistics27 must not be reduced to the power aspect. They interpret all the respective debates as a particular set of ideas the ‘three distinct UNs’ put onto the agenda of world politics. In other words, from this point of view, NGOs can no longer be perceived as organizations outside the UN; rather, they become an integral aspect of the UN itself. Before it is possible to discuss the respective issues in greater detail, it is, however, necessary to add some information on the two fields of cooperation that will form the centre of the following analyses – first, the role of human rights in the context of the UN, and second, the role of religion in the context of the UN.

4.2  Human rights in the context of the UN As has been argued in the Introduction, the present volume singles out the human rights discourse in order to focus the analyses of RNGO activities. Consequently, the following pages are neither the place to describe the multifold debates on human rights in general nor to deal with particular aspects of the human rights debates in any sufficient detail. This topic has been dealt with by an immense corpus of literature coming from very different disciplines (such as Law, History, Sociology, and Political Sciences) and covering over 2,000 years of history as well as almost all aspects of human rights (including the human rights situation in virtually every country and region around the world).28 With regard to the analyses of UN-­related activities of RNGOs, it should be sufficient to make the point that present-­day research tends to discuss human rights debates along the lines of three different – and sometimes contradictory – strands. The first strand describes human rights as a highly significant and worldwide lingua franca that works towards the betterment of human conditions. The second strand perceives human rights as instruments of Western, colonial power, thus putting their positive consequences into question. And finally there is a third strand that de-­constructs human rights as an expert discourse. This strand is

64   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN a­ ctually limited to a tiny minority of bureaucrats and advocates who have no further influence on everyday life.29 Most recently, scholars with a background in Religious Studies have started to contribute a fourth strand to these debates. Using the analytical tools of the Academic Study of Religions, scholars such as James V. Spickard, Rosalind I.J. Hackett, Thomas Wamsler, and Christoph Elsas30 underline not only the influence of religiously affiliated organizations or individuals on the history of human rights, but also the beliefs and rituals linked to the very idea of human rights. Along those lines, Rosalind I.J. Hackett describes human rights as an emerging field for students of religion: that the particular skills that religion scholars bring to the table in terms of what Ninian Smart called ‘worldview analysis’, namely the critical interpretation of sacred symbol, text, space, ritual, object, community, as well as cultural difference and identity, are highly germane in the analysis of human rights discourse and practice. We should also include here the mobilizing and authorizing power of religious rhetoric, as well as arguments for the inclusion of secular ideologies. Moreover, the location of religious studies scholarship at the intersection of the humanities and social sciences [. . .] can serve to complement, if not healthily challenge, the domination of these questions by legal, political, and philosophical theorists.31 The following considerations draw upon all these different strands of analyses focusing, however, on the empirical reconstruction of concrete modern human rights debates inside the UN – rather than their philosophical legitimation or their overall historic sources. In this respect, the following section will identify, first, the major steps of the history of the ‘modern’ human rights discourse (primarily associated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and add, second, more specific references to the human rights debates that constitute this discourse inside the UN. 4.2.1  Expansion of the human rights discourse The above distinction of four different strands in present-­day discussions on human rights immediately underlines the complexity of the respective debates. Even the most basic trajectories on the history of human rights can be constructed in very different ways.32 While the more supportive approaches tend to highlight a long tradition of human rights discourse, embedded into major strands of philosophical thinking, more critical authors underline substantive Western influences on human rights, thus doubting any approach that argues for their universal applicability. Despite these obvious differences, there seems to be one common denominator that is of particular significance for the following analyses. In any case, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is widely perceived as a major step in the modern history of human rights – be it for better or worse:

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   65 The Universal Declaration crystallized 150 years of struggle for rights. [. . .] even though the ‘world’ convention was dominated by the British and the Amer­icans, it set the mold for future international campaigns for women’s suffrage, protection of child labor, workers’ rights, and a host of other issues, some rights related, and others, such as temperance, not.33 From this starting-­point, the more recent history of human rights is frequently divided into three generations: Die ‘1. Generation’ meint die bürgerlichen und politischen Abwehr- und Gestaltungsrechte. Die Entwicklung einer ‘2. Generation’ wirtschaftlicher, sozialer und kultureller Rechte findet ihre Begründung darin, dass die Abwehr- und Teilnahmerechte keinen ausreichenden Schutz darstellen. [. . .] Als Menschenrechte der ‘3. Generation’ werden die kollektiven Rechte bezeichnet. Sie sind zuerst als Recht auf Selbstbestimmung der Völker in Artikel 1 der beiden Internationalen Pakte aufgenommen worden.34 Following this line of thought, it becomes possible to characterize modern human rights discourse along the lines of a twofold trend towards expansion. On the one hand, the human rights discourse has become more and more inclusive – up to the point that even critiques of human rights use references to human rights to formulate their critique. On the other hand, the human rights discourse encompasses more and more aspects of human life – from freedom of religion, to the right to work, and cultural expression, to recent debates on ‘defamation of religion’ – that tend to expand human rights beyond the human person. Of course, these trends are embedded in a whole set of major socio-­political changes on the level of international relations. Inter alia they are linked to controversies between the two major political blocs of the post-­war period, the increasing emergence of the African, Asian, Latin Amer­ican, and Caribbean states, and the augmenting significance of the so-­called new social movements. During the 1960s and 1970s, the first human rights organizations (namely, Amnesty International (founded in 1961) and Human Rights Watch (founded in 1978)) were developed into centres of worldwide networks of human rights activists that now constitute a major force behind the most recent changes in the human rights discourse.35 As far as the book at hand is concerned, it is important to underline to what extent these trends constitute the multifaceted landscape of ideas and organizations that form the background for various human rights debates inside the UN as well as their contributions to the construction of the general human rights discourse. In other words, this is the frame of reference upon which the case analyses have to be undertaken. Accordingly, it makes sense to have a closer look at the major human rights debates and bodies at the UN.

66   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN 4.2.2  Major human rights documents and bodies inside the UN With regard to the history of human rights debates inside the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) constitutes a first – even though highly symbolic as well as highly controversial – step in a long row of human rightsrelated documents. The UDHR inter alia formed the basis for the formulation of two human rights covenants – the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)’ as well as the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)’ – adopted in 1966 (and ten years later coming into force).36 In the words of Roger Normand and Sarah Zaidi: In retrospect, the Universal Declaration crowned a brief honeymoon period when it was still possible, albeit difficult, to bridge competing ideologies of rights. By 1950, the Cold War had erupted into the open and the UN was functioning as the diplomatic front line. [. . .] Throughout the 1950s, Cold War tensions, heightened by fears of nuclear war, colored every aspect of international relations. The world was split into two hostile camps with numerous points of conflict. [. . .] The Security Council remained deadlocked in the 1960s while the balance of power in the General Assembly continued to shift sharply away from western control. [. . .] The protracted series of negotiations that finally gave birth to the covenants in 1966 mirrored this larger context in global conflict.37 On this basis, the major developments of the history of human rights debates at the UN can be structured along the lines of human rights documents as well as human rights bodies. As far as the documents are concerned, the Conventions (and the respective Optional Protocols) are normally identified as the most significant steps that structure the history of human rights: • • • • • • •

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) International Conventions on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Families (1990) International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006).

These major documents have provided the basis for the work of UN-­related (Charter or Treaty-­based) human rights bodies. This development can be divided into three steps: (1) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was still a

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   67 decisively symbolic document (prepared by the 1946 Commission on Human Rights and adopted by the General Assembly) that was not substantiated by the establishment of a concrete human rights body; (2) it was after the adoption of the 1966 Covenants that the UN established the Human Rights Committee as a first committee of experts monitoring the implementation of the Covenants; (3) in 2006, the UN General Assembly finally created the Human Rights Council (replacing the older Human Rights Committee) as the centre of present-­day human rights activities at the UN. For the following analyses, these developments are of twofold significance. On the one hand, human rights-­related documents and bodies (together with more general references to the modern history of human rights) help to form a timeline – suggesting, for example, that respective developments can be characterized by certain peaks (in the 1970s and 1990s) as well as a general trend towards an expansion of the human rights discourse. On the other hand, they give an idea of the dynamics of these developments. The early human rights documents (primarily the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) were of so much public interest that they formed a major incentive for RNGO cooperation with the UN and involved them in the debates around most of the other documents and bodies linked to human rights. In order to further elaborate this line of thought, the present chapter needs to take a second aspect into account that forms a central part of the following analyses – the development of the formal place of religions within the UN context.

4.3  Religions in the context of the UN As soon as one approaches the question of the place of religions in the context of the UN, one is confronted with a very surprising observation. Unlike almost all nation states, the UN has developed no explicit policy on religions. The organizations and committees of the UN tend to express opinions about religious issues only in exceptional cases and then normally on a largely formal plane (for example, in relation to the usage rights of religious buildings in Palestine).38 And this is true with respect to disputes about the general policy of the United Nations (formulated in the General Assembly, ECOSOC, or the Security Council) as well as official analyses of international conflicts and concrete politics with regard to religions. In the research literature, this observation is largely subsumed under the notion of the secular (or secularist) subtext of the UN in particular and international relations in general that has already been spelled out in Chapter 2. In addition to this, the following section will, however, suggest that the history of the UN reveals at least two aspects that question the clear-­cut boundaries between the religious and the secular in this context. First, the establishment of religious freedom – as initially expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – opened a systematic place for religion-­related debates that actually has been widening throughout the last decades. Second, the role of religiously affiliated actors at the UN must not be underestimated.39

68   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN 4.3.1  Religious freedom in the UN and beyond To assess UN-­based debates on religious freedom, one has to begin in the 1940s. From the founding days of the UN onwards, religious freedom has been part of its initial human rights catalogue as put forward in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 18 of the UDHR actually integrates religious freedom into the context of freedom of thought and conscience, presenting a rather wide spectrum of beliefs and practices that are protected under the Declaration: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Article 18, UDHR) Despite the early prominence of religious freedom, it must not be overlooked that Article 18 formed – over quite some time – almost the only outspoken reference to religion in an official UN document. It was not until 1956 that the Subcommission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities initiated the ‘Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices’ (unofficially named after its Special Rapporteur Arcot Krishnaswami), submitted its final report in 196040 and formed a first new step in UN-­related debates on religious liberty.41 On the basis of manifold country reports, the study starts from a detailed exegesis of Article 18 of the UDHR, leading up to more practical remarks on national approaches to religious freedom and finally culminating in a list of ‘16 Basic Rules’ that spelled out the formulations of the Universal Declaration in a more detailed and cautious way. Besides the rather formal allusions to religion in the two 1966 Covenants, the next decades saw no further UN references to religious freedom – at least as far as major documents and bodies were concerned. It was only during the early 1980s and 1990s with the ‘Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief ’ (1981) and the ‘Resolution on the Elimination of All Forms of Religious Intolerance’ (1993) that the UN started to re-­address this subject-­matter in any detail. In conjunction with other UN documents, these two texts finally constituted the framework of a discussion that led, among other things, to the establishment of the office of a ‘UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief ’ – an honorary position that, so far, has been taken up by personalities that shaped the international debates about religious freedom through country reports and missions.42 Throughout the last few years, debates on religious freedom have finally (re) gained controversial prominence. As Heiner Bielefeldt (the present-­day Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief ) suggests in his more recent publications, the right to religious freedom has been critically approached from two opposing points of view. On the one hand, from the point of view of religion (with its critics arguing that religion should no longer be under the protection of a specific human

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   69 rights article), and on the other hand from the point of view of liberty (with the respective protagonists making the point that the right to leave one’s religion should not – for example – be protected by a specific human rights article).43 And these more recent debates are embedded into fundamental changes in the UN’s approach to religion that started around 2000, when Kofi Annan became the first Secretary General of the United Nations who expressed himself prominently on the theme of religion.44 In 2001 (and this means of course in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks)45 Annan dedicated around one-­third of his Nobel Prize reception speech to the relationship between religions, prominently voicing the conviction that: Each of us has the right to take pride in our particular faith or heritage. But the notion that what is ours is necessarily in conflict with what is theirs is both false and dangerous. It has resulted in endless enmity and conflict [. . .]. It need not be so. People of different religions and cultures live side by side in almost every part of the world, and most of us have overlapping identities which unite us with very different groups.46 Almost simultaneously, the General Assembly, in its Resolution 59/142, started to ask the Secretary Generals to report upon the theme of a ‘Promotion of Religious and Cultural Understanding, Harmony and Cooperation’. And this coincided with an increasing interest in interreligious and intercultural dialogue inside the UN system as well as among other international agencies leading up to the ‘UN Year of Dialogue among Civilizations (2001), the High-­level Dialogue on Interreligious and Intercultural Understanding and Cooperation for Peace’ (2007), or the ongoing attempts to initiate a ‘UN Decade of Interreligious, and Intercultural Dialogue, Understanding and Cooperation for Peace’. With regard to the present analyses, this overall process illustrates how the development of the UN’s approach to religious freedom expanded towards a wider inclusion of religion in its official documents. Early UN-­related debates on religious freedom were rather limited, focusing on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Krishnaswami Study, and the human rights Covenants. It is only from the 1980s onwards that these debates have gained momentum, with a decisive peak around 2000. Under these conditions, discussion on religion and religious freedom inside the UN seems to have changed considerably from rather specific references to religious freedom to more general debates on the role of religions inside international relations. In addition, however, the fact that the history of the UN can also be characterized by an ongoing presence of different religiously affiliated actors must not be neglected. 4.3.2  Religiously affiliated actors at the UN This general reference to religiously affiliated actors inside the UN neither repeats discussions on religious affiliation nor forestalls more general debates on

70   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN the sedimentation of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. Rather, for the present purpose, it should be sufficient to highlight the frequently neglected presence of collective and individual actors within the UN that are characterized by an explicit reference to systems of religious symbols and thus form at least an implicit framework for the activities of RNGOs. As far as the collective level is concerned, a number of states or confederations of states present themselves as having particular links to religion. As a paradigmatic case, one might name the Holy See, which started to cooperate with the UN as a permanent observer in 1964. But there is also the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is based upon the ideal of the Muslim ummah (the religious community of all Muslims) and is, as a regional confederation of states, officially connected with the United Nations.47 Furthermore, some states (such as Egypt, the US or Russia) frequently describe themselves as ‘representatives’ or ‘strongholds’ of specific religious traditions.48 With regard to the role of individual actors, there are no indicators that suppose that international civil servants do not follow any personal religious agenda. To the contrary, in a recently edited volume, Kent J. Kille has analysed the individual beliefs of the Secretaries General of the United Nations, highlighting the significance of these beliefs for their respective policies as well as the overall role of the UN: The secretary-­general has often been referred to as the world’s secular pope. This term at once captures the sense of moral authority expected of the position, including its religious overtones – and asserts the United Nations’ essentially secular nature. The weighty moral expectations of the office stand in contrast to the difficult ethical dilemmas with which every secretary-­general must wrestle. The job of secretary-­general is never an easy one, but occupants are likely to continue to rely on their personal ethics and religion and do their best to provide the moral authority the international community so sorely needs.49 In the context of the present analyses, the significance of these two types of religiously affiliated actors must, however, not be overstated. First of all, the respective states are – numerically speaking – but a rather small minority and the religiosity of single individuals is still far from being openly discussed. Second, there are only limited links between these two levels and the RNGOs. The empirical significance of these actors has to be further discussed in the case analyses. Before approaching the cases, the present chapter needs, however, to add some general information upon the developments of RNGOs, that set the stage for the case analyses.

4.4  Accredited RNGOs in the context of the UN In order to describe the role of RNGOs inside the context of the UN, it is helpful to start with some general remarks on the accreditation process. As has already

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   71 been alluded to, the status of an accredited NGO is granted by a special ‘NGO Committee’ of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). First established in 1946, this committee consists – since 1981 – of 19 representatives of UN member states that are chosen for four years according to geographic distribution: five members from Africa, four members from Asia, two members from Eastern Europe, four members from Latin America and the Caribbean, and four members from Western Europe and other states.50 These representatives decide upon the applications of all NGOs (including the religiously affiliated ones) on the basis of their links to UN fields of action and their support of the Charter of the UN.51 The decision on accreditation has, however, never been a one-­sided process. Every accreditation presupposes an application by the respective organizations. The processes that lead to those applications are at least as complex as the processes inside the UN (and certainly more divergent). With regard to RNGOs, three aspects need to be underlined: first of all, a traditional identification with specific policy areas of the UN (for example, the ‘peace policy’ with ‘Society of Friends/ Quakers’ or the ‘social policy’ with ‘Caritas Internationalis’) tends to serve as the starting-­point for the application process. On this basis, specific applications have – second – frequently been determined by the initiative of single members (such as with the ‘Sisters of Mercy’ or the ‘Franciscans International’) or by decisions that are taken in the wake of centrally determined strategy developments (as with ‘Kolping International’). Finally, it is interesting to see that formal accreditation is frequently followed by the establishment of specialized committees (such as the ‘Commission of the Churches on International Affairs’ (CCIA), the ‘Baha’i International Community (BIC) or the Quaker UN Offices’ (QUNO)). Keeping this very complex setting in mind, the final sections of this chapter will reflect upon the formal status of RNGOs and sketch their developments in the context of the United Nations. 4.4.1  The formal status of RNGOs It would be misleading to exaggerate the significance of the formal nature of RNGO status at the UN. Structurally speaking, this status alludes only to the fact that a specific organization went through a particular process and achieved a formal status. Practically speaking, the RNGO status equips the respective organizations (or rather their representatives) with a number of specific privileges – formal as well as informal. On the level of formal procedures, all accredited NGOs have the right to participate in a number of UN activities and to address formal statements to UN organs (that are distributed via the UN documentation services). Informally, the NGO status grants easier access to the premises of the UN in order to make contacts with state representatives as well as representatives of the UN and its specialized agencies. (And the archive materials as well as the interviews suggest that this access to the premises is of high significance for all those actors that want to influence the work of the UN.) At the same time it is interesting to see that NGO status also forms a basis for cooperation between NGOs. The so-­called ‘NGO-­community’ in Geneva and

72   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN New York City is very well interconnected,52 and religiously affiliated umbrella organizations were among the first to foster this type of cooperation. To give but a few examples: The ‘International Catholic Organizations Information Center’ (and its sister organization in Geneva), was established in New York in 1946. In the 1960s, the women’s section of the ‘Amer­ican Baptists’ founded the ‘Church Center for the United Nations (CCUN)’, an 11-story building situated directly across from the United Nations headquarters, that houses the offices of around 40 Christian and inter-­confessional NGOs. The ‘Committee of Religious Non-­ Governmental Organizations at the United Nations’ is an example of an interreligious group of NGO representatives that has been meeting regularly since 1972. Among the most recent networks of this kind is the ‘Tripartite Forum on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace’, which met for the first time in June 2005. Finally, NGO status seems to affect the general standing of the respective organizations – first, with regard to their position in the wider public and second, with regard to their position inside the religious tradition(s) these organizations affiliate themselves with. Most of the RNGOs tend to give their NGO status a prominent position – be it on their website, in public statements, or in media interviews. This suggests that they attribute a significant amount of social and cultural capital to this status. In other words, in particular social milieus, cooperation with the UN seems to stand for worldwide impact and significance. From this point of view, it is most telling that the concept of the ‘Religious Non-­ governmental Organization’ (RNGO) has developed into a self-­description that is becoming more and more prevalent.53 Quite a number of religious organizations that wish to be present in the context of international politics no longer call themselves ‘churches’, ‘orders’, or ‘religious communities’; they rather employ the term ‘RNGO’ in order to emphasize their established place within the UN context.54 With all this being said, it becomes possible to identify a number of general trends among the RNGOs within the context of the UN. 4.4.2  General trends among RNGOs In order to identify these trends, the following considerations refer to the ECOSOC list of NGOs (with general and special status) that presents the official status of all NGOs inside the UN.55 To adequately assess the results of these considerations, one has to keep in mind that the ECOSOC list is subject to two major restrictions. First, the list provides only information on those NGOs that are still active in the context of the UN. Second, it gives only the date of their accreditation with the most exclusive status.56 In most cases, however, these do not pose categorical problems in as far as they can be supplemented with information from other sources, such as the member list of the ‘Committee of Religious NGOs at the United Nations’,57 or the list of the ‘Conference of Non-­Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the UN’ (CONGO).58 In comparison to these parallel lists, the ECOSOC list does not indicate the official self-­affiliation of the respective NGOs.59 However, for the vast majority

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   73 of NGOs given on the ECOSOC list, identification with particular systems of religious symbols becomes evident as soon as one has a closer look at their official names. Most names highlight either the nexus to a particular religious tradition (for example, the manifold organizations that describe themselves as International Catholic or Worldwide Muslim organizations), or to a personality or a concept that is perceived as being of religious significance (for example, the ‘Imam Al-­Sadr Foundation’, ‘Inner Trip Reiykai International’ or the ‘International Kolping Society’). In some cases it is, however, more difficult to identify the religious affiliation of particular NGOs. There are, for example, NGOs with a history that is characterized by a shift of their religious self-­perception or self-­representation. There are NGOs that, in the beginning, were dominated by founding figures with a high religious commitment that seems to have decreased throughout the history of the respective organization. Moreover, it is not always easy to draw a line between the dominant religious culture of a particular region and the character of the organizations embedded in this culture. The Christian affiliation of members of Amer­ican-­based conservative NGOs does not, for example, necessarily imply that these NGOs fall into the above category. This becomes particularly difficult on the fringes of religious traditions or in those cases that refer to a rather general spiritual commitment.60 Taking these necessary precautions into account, the developments reflected in the official present-­day ECOSOC list can be divided into four major phases. The first phase (1947 to the mid-­1960s) was primarily dominated by the early establishment of a particular spectrum of Christian NGOs in the context of the UN. These two decades have seen the accreditation of a total of 18 RNGOs – over half of them in 1947 and 1948. Fourteen of these early RNGOs (including not only the two cases analysed here, but also the ‘Salvation Army’, the ‘World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations’ (YMCA), or the ‘International Catholic Union of the Press and the International Young Christian Workers’) had a background in Christianity and only four maintained explicit links to Judaism (The Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, the World Jewish Congress, the Agudath Israel World Organization and the International Council on Jewish Social and Welfare Services). In other words, this earliest phase of RNGO activity was strongly dominated by Western, and Judeo-­Christian organizations that wanted to represent their religious traditions (or at least specific aspects of their traditions). After a decisive decrease in the number of accreditations during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the second phase of the development of RNGOs covers the time period between the mid-­1960s and the mid-­1990s. During these years, the numbers of RNGOs were steadily increasing (with an average of one accreditation per year). Besides, these years saw the first successful attempts of RNGOs with a background other than Christian and Jewish (predominantly Muslim) to cooperate with the UN, thus widening the spectrum of religious traditions officially represented at the UN. To name but a few well-­known examples: ‘World Muslim Congress’ (1967), ‘Baha’i International Community’ (1970), ‘Muslim

74   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN World League’ (1979), ‘Subud’ (1991). Moreover, this second phase was dominated by a slow shift in the territorial emphasis of RNGOs. Whereas the first RNGOs had their headquarters either in Europe or North America, these newly accredited organizations started a trend of RNGOs with a background in Asia and (later on) South America and Africa. The third phase can be characterized by a rapid increase of RNGO accreditations within the UN context. From the mid-­1990s onwards, there were normally around ten accreditations per year – with a peak in the years around 2000 (21 accreditations in 1998, 17 accreditations in 2000, and another 17 in 2004). Around the same time, this phase saw an ongoing process of differentiation in terms of the religious traditions the RNGOs linked themselves to. In 1995 the first NGO with an explicit link to Buddhism successfully sought accreditation (‘World Fellowship of Buddhists’). In the same year the first two organizations with a decisive interreligious background were allotted NGO status (the ‘Temple of Understanding’ and the ‘Wittenberg Center for Alternative Resources’). One year later NGO status was accredited to the ‘Art of Living Foundation’ (with a Hindu background). And this high dynamic of the RNGO scene, as well as the increasing diversification of RNGOs (in terms of their religious background), is still going on today (with a slight decrease in the second half of the 2000s). Two major changes make it justifiable to talk about a fourth phase that started around the mid-­2000s. On the one hand, the general character of the newly accredited NGOs was changing after the turn of the century. In terms of the socio-­ political standpoint, the majority of the RNGOs so far had a more or less liberal outlook. From the mid-­2000s onwards, an increasing number of conservative RNGOs approached the UN. In 2003 – for example – three RNGOs with a focus on the family were accredited by the UN (‘Focus on the Family’, ‘the Focus on the Family Association’ (Canada) and the ‘Howard Center for Family’, Religion and Society’). On the other hand, the slight decrease of RNGO accreditations in the second half of the 2000s suggests that the main character of UN-­related non-­state activities is about to change. Rather loosely organized coalitions of NGOs focusing on a particular subject matter (such as the ‘Tripartite Forum on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace’ or the ‘NGO Working Group on the Security Council’) are gaining more and more significance, without appearing on the ECOSOC list. These remarks help to identify a number of general characterizations that dominate the developments of the RNGOs. 4.4.3  General characteristics of RNGOs in the context of the UN Most generally speaking it is possible to describe the overall development of the RNGO community in the UN context along the following four lines that hint towards the dynamics of this community as well as their complexity: 1

The number of RNGOs has steadily increased. In the first years after the establishing of the United Nations (1945–1949) around ten RNGOs were accredited. Between the 1950s and 1970s, the number of accreditations

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   75

2

3

4

increased from six in the 1950s to 14 in the 1980s. After the end of the Cold War their number significantly increased once again. In the 1990s, around 70 religiously affiliated NGOs received their special or general status, and in the 2000s more than 100 RNGOs went through the respective processes. There are significant differences with regard to the religious traditions the RNGOs are affiliated with. Over half of them stem from Christian traditions (around 130). The second largest group is connected to various traditions of Islam (31), followed by interreligious organizations (15) and Jewish groupings (12), as well as religious organizations with a Buddhist (nine) or Hindu (seven) background. RNGOs are often supported by specific religious milieus. Among the nearly 50 Catholic NGOs, for example, there are welfare groups founded in the middle of the nineteenth century, the Industrial Revolution, or the post-­war period. Moreover, Catholic umbrella organizations of single regional, professional, or interest groups are present in the United Nations, which mostly arose in the first half of the twentieth century. Finally, there are a number of Catholic NGOs that developed out of specific spiritual traditions within the Roman Catholic Church. The vast majority of RNGOs have their headquarters either in Europe or America (and this means primarily in the US). However, there is also a significant number of RNGOs (predominantly with a Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu background) that have their organizational centre in Asia. Furthermore, it is particularly interesting to see that seven out of the 31 Muslim NGOs officially accredited to ECOSOC designate headquarters in Europe (for example, ‘Islamic Relief ’ or ‘Islamic World Studies’).

All these characterizations must, however, remain superficial as long as they neglect the processes inside the respective organizations. In order to analyse these internal processes, one has to turn to detailed case studies. And this is the line of thought the analyses in the next two chapters will follow, focusing upon the study of UN and human rights-­related discourses inside the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) and Pax Romana (IMCS – ICMICA).

Notes   1 Formerand, Jacques (ed.), Historical Dictionary of the United Nations, Lanham/ Toronto/Plymouth 2007; Volger, Helmut (ed.), Grundlagen und Strukturen der Vere­ inten Nationen, München/Wien 2007. For a more general perspective, see Forst, Rainer and Günther, Klaus (eds), Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen – Inter­ disziplinäre Perspektiven, Frankfurt am Main/New York 2011.   2 Robertson, Roland and White, Katheleen E., Globalization – Specialized Applications and Resistance to Globalization, London/New York 2003; Featherstone, Mike (ed.), Global Culture – Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, London/Thousand Oaks 1990.   3 Woodhead, Linda et al. (eds), Religions in the Modern World, London/New York 2002; Polak, Regina (ed.), Megatrend Religion? – Neue Religiositäten in Europa, Ostfildern 2002.

76   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   4 Casanova, José, Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago/London 1994.   5 Betts, Raymond F., A History of Popular Culture – More of Everything, Faster, and Brighter, 2nd edn, New York/London 2012; Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties – Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, c. 1958 – c. 1974, Oxford/ New York 1998; Storey, John (ed.), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture – A Reader, 4th edn, Harlow 2009.   6 Glendon, Mary Ann, A World Made New – Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Dec­ laration of Human Rights, New York 2001.   7 For the more polemic side of these discussions, see Favret-­Saada and Jeanne, Jeux d’ombres sur la scѐne de l’ONU – Droits humains et Laicité, Paris 2010; DeRuvo, Fred, Powerfully Dark Spiritual Forces, the Global Elite, and the United Nations, Scotts Valley 2013.   8 See Meisler, Stanley, United Nations – The First Fifty Years, New York 1995.   9 See, for example, Schimmelfennig, Frank, Internationale Politik, 3rd edn, Paderborn 2013; Jackson, Robert and Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to International Relations – Theories and Approaches, 4th edn, Oxford 2010. 10 These debates are discussed in the following publications: Rittberger, Volker et al., Vereinte Nationen und Weltordnung – Zivilisierung der internationalen Politik?, Opladen 1997; Kennedy, Paul, The Parliament of Man – The Past, Present and Future of the United Nations, New York 2007. 11 This position is actually quite close to the general attitude of most of the RNGOs that – on the one hand – take the limited powers of the UN into account, and perceive the UN – on the other hand – primarily as a platform for debates on a global level. 12 The exemplary role of the UN is derived from its sheer size as well as its increased scope of action – at least in comparison with the League of Nations. [. . .] Its principle task – the safeguarding of peace – includes the recognition of human rights and is implemented by the General Assembly as well as the Security Council (with its veto power). [. . .] In addition, the UN is the centrepiece of a conglomeration of various intergovernmental organizations that is occasionally described as the ‘UN family’. [. . . Finally, the establishment of this UN family] stands for a far reaching turning point in the history of international relations in as far as it introduced the differentiation between governmental and intergovernmental bodies (translation by K. Lehmann). (Herren, Madeleine, Internationale Organisationen seit 1865 – Eine Globalgeschichte der internationalen Ordnung, Darmstadt 2009) 13 Gorman, Robert F., Great Debates at the United Nations – An Encyclopedia of Fifty Key Issues 1945–2000, Westport/London 2001. 14 Unser, Günther, Die UNO – Aufgaben, Strukturen, Politik, München 2004. 15 United Nations Office of Information (ed.), Basic Facts – About the United Nations, New York 2004. 16 Volger, Helmut (ed.), Grundlagen und Strukturen. 17 This is at least one of the major themes of the autobiographies of the Secretaries- General of the UN. See, for example, Lie, Trygve, In the Case of Peace – Seven Years with the United Nations, New York 1954; Thant, U, View from the UN, London 1977; Pérez de Cuéllar, Javier, Pilgrimage for Peace – A Secretary-­General’s Memoir, New York 1997. 18 Krasno, Jean E. (ed.), United Nations – Confronting the Challenges of a Global Society, Colorado/London 2004; Murphy, Craig N., International Organizations and industrial Change – Global Governance since 1850, Cambridge/Oxford 1994. 19 Weiss, Thomas G. and Gordenker, Leon (ed.), NGOS, the UN, and Global Govern­ ance, Boulder/London 1996. 20 Willetts, Peter (ed.), ‘The Conscience of the World’ – The Influence of Non-­ Governmental Organisations in the UN System, Washington, DC 1996; Korey,

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   77 William, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ‘A Curious Grape­ vine’, New York/Basingstoke 1998; Martens, Kerstin, NGOs and the United Nations – Institutionalization, Professionalization and Adaption, London 2005. 21 Boli, John and Thomas, George M., ‘INGOS and the Organization of World Culture’, in Boli, John and Thomas, George M. (eds), Constructing World Culture – International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford 1999, pp. 13–49, here: p. 20. 22 Jolly, Richard et al., UN Ideas That Changed the World, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2009. 23 Claude, Inis L. Jr, Swords into Plowshares – The Problems and Prospects of Inter­ national Organizations, New York 1956. 24 Jolly, Richard et al., UN Ideas That Changed the World, pp. 32f. 25 MacFarlane, S. Neil and Khong, Yuen Foong, Human Security and the UN – A Crit­ ical History, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2006. 26 Stokke, Olav, The UN and Development – From Aid to Cooperation, Bloomington/ Indianapolis 2009. 27 Ward, Michael, Quantifying the World – UN Ideas and Statistics, Bloomington/ Indianapolis 2004. 28 As far as Germany is concerned, this subject is addressed in two major projects: Exzellenzcluster: Normative Orders of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (www.normativeorders.net/) as well as the Exzellenzcluster Religion und Politik (www.uni-­muenster.de/Religion-­und-Politik/en/index.shtml, both accessed 31 October 2015). 29 Just to give a very first insight into those debates, Haase, Michael, International Human Rights – A Comprehensive Introduction, London/New York 2008; Fritzsche, K. Peter, Menschenrechte – Eine Einführung mit Dokumenten, 2nd edn, Paderborn/ München/Wien/Zürich 2009. 30 Spickard, James V., ‘Human Rights through A Religious Lens: A Programmatic Argument’, Social Compass 49 (2002), pp.  227–238; Wamsler, Thomas, ‘Political Classification and the Framework of Tradition – Reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from a History of Religions Perspective’, in Binderup, Lars and Jensen, Tim, (ed.), Human Rights Democracy and Religion – In the Perspective of Cultural Studies, Philosophy, and the Study of Religions, Odensen 2005; Elsas, Christoph, ‘Human Rights’, in Elsas, Christoph (ed.), Tradition and Translation – Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene – Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin/New York 1994, pp.  435–451; Jödicke, Ansgar (ed.), Religious Education, Politics, the State, and Society, Würzburg 2013. 31 Hackett, Rosalind I.J., ‘Human Rights: An Important Challenging New Field for the Study of Religion’, in Antes, Peter et al. (eds), New Approaches to the Study of Reli­ gion 2 – Textual, comparative, sociological, and cognitive Approaches, Berlin/New York 2008, pp. 165–191, here: p. 166. 32 Glendon, Mary Ann, A World Made New – Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Decla­ ration of Human Rights, New York 2001; Winter, Jay, Dreams of Peace and Freedom – Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, New Haven/London 2006, here: pp. 99–120. 33 Hunt, Lynn, Inventing Human Rights – A History, New York/London 2007, pp. 205f. 34 The ‘1st Generation’ refers to the civil and political rights of defence and discretion. The development of a ‘2nd Generation’ of economic, social and cultural rights is attributable to the perception that the rights of defence and discretion do not represent effective protection. [. . .] Collective rights are referred to as ‘3rd Generation’ human rights. For the first time, they were included as the ‘right to self-­determination of peoples’ in article 1 of the international covenants [on human rights] (translation by K. Lehmann). (Fritzsche, K. Peter, Menschenrechte – Eine Einführung mit Dokumenten, 2nd edn, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 2009, p. 25)

78   Religions and human rights in the context of the UN 35 Actually one should not overlook the ‘traditional’ forces that shape the human rights debate, either. 36 At this point one needs to refer to the fact that there are a number of other human rights declarations that are not linked to the UN – most prominently the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1979), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004). Unfortunately this cannot be elaborated on. 37 Normand, Roger and Zaidi, Sarah, Human Rights at the UN – The Political History of Universal Justice, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2008, pp. 199f. 38 See, for example, the well-­known Resolution 194 of the General Assembly of 11 December, 1948. 39 Of course there is also the question of the role of the UN in a global civil religion that gained further momentum throughout the last two decades, but will not be further discussed here. See Bellah, Robert N., Can We Imagine a Global Civil Religion? (McDonald lecture, Center for the Study of Law and Religion, on 26 October 2007, available at: http://cslr.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/media/PDFs/Lectures/Bellah. Alonzo_McDonald_Lecture.Can_We_Imagine_a_Global_Civil_Religion.pdf, accessed 31 October 2015). 40 United Nations, Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Prac­ tices, by Arcit Krishnaswami special Rapporteur of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, New York 1960 (E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/ Rev.1). 41 See Lerner, Natan, Religion, Belief, and International Human Rights, New York 2000, here: pp. 9–39. 42 The juridical implications of this process are presented in Wiener, Michael, Das Mandat des UN-­Sonderberichterstatters über Religions- und Weltanschauungsfreiheit – Institutionelle, prozedurale und materielle Rechtsfragen, Frankfurt am Main 2007. 43 Heimbach-­Steins, Marianne and Bielefeldt, Heiner (eds), Religionen und Religions­ freiheit – Menschenrechtliche Perspektiven im Spannungsfeld von Mission und Kon­ version, Würzburg 2010. 44 Kille, Kent J. (ed.), The UN Secretary General and Moral Authority – Ethics and Religion in International Leadership, Washington, DC 2007. 45 Bruce, Lincoln, Holy Terrors – Thinking about Religion after September 11, Chicago and London 2003. 46 UN Press Release SG/SM/8071. 47 One of the few depictions: Ahsan, Abdullah al., The Organization of the Islamic Con­ ference – An Introduction to an Islamic Political Institution, Herndon 1988. 48 See the recent literature on ‘faith-­based diplomacy’, Johnston, Douglas, Faith-­based Diplomacy – Trumping Realpolitik, Oxford/New York 2003. 49 Kille, Kent J., ‘The Secular Pope’, in Kille, Kent J. (ed.), The UN Secretary-­General and Moral Authority, pp. 337–353, here: p. 353. 50 See Resolution 1981/50. 51 Fitschen Thomas, ‘Vereinte Nationen und nichtstaatliche Organisationen’, in Volger, Helmut (ed.), Grundlagen und Strukturen der Vereinten Nationen, München/Wien 2007, pp. 309–329. 52 Especially those organized in the Conference of NGOs in consultative status with the United Nations (CONGO): www.ngocongo.org/ (accessed 15 October 2015). 53 For a case analysis, see Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Etablierung als Nicht-­ Regierungsorganisation – Zum frühen Engagement der Quäker im Kontext der UNO’, Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft 13 (2012), pp. 35–52. 54 This status provides these organizations not only with access to informational materials and contact with specific committees. It also opens a wide spectrum of informal forms of influence. See, Schulze, Peter M., ‘Nichtstaatliche Organisationen (NGOs)’, in Volger, Helmut (ed.) Lexikon der Vereinten Nationen, München/Wien 2000,

Religions and human rights in the context of the UN   79 pp. 397–405. Also see Martens, Kersten, NGOs and the United Nations – Institution­ alization, Professionalization and Adaption, London 2005. 55 See document E/2011/INF/4. 56 Even after detailed research, this might still add a small amount of inaccuracy. 57 See https://rngos.wordpress.com (accessed 31 October 2015). 58 See: www.ngocongo.org (accessed 31 October 2015). For further information it is helpful to access the official web-­site of ECOSOC’s NGO branch: http://csonet.org/ (accessed 31 October 2015). 59 Actually, even the RNGO list highlights the interest in religious topics rather than the religious affiliation. 60 This implies for example, that the following section excludes humanist NGOs with an explicit atheist agenda (for example, the International Humanist and Ethical Union) or human rights NGOs dealing with religious freedom among their main fields of activity (for example, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies or the Philippine Human Rights Information Center). They also exclude humanitarian organizations such as CARE – Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, which once had a religious background, but nowadays presents itself as a secular organization.

5 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA)

The first of the two cases to be presented in this book is the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs/CCIA – which was founded in 1946 as a joint commission of two Christian umbrella organizations: (1) the World Council of Churches/WCC, at the time a loosely organized cooperation of approximately 150 churches – primarily with Protestant background1 and (2) the International Missionary Council/IMC founded in 1921, and organized in national councils to support Protestant missionary activities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.2 As indicated by its formal name, the CCIA was established as a specialized commission to work on international affairs. The first version of its Charter (written in 1946 and formally acknowledged in 1948) describes this aim as well as the relationship between the Commission and its sending agencies in the following way: The primary responsibility of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs shall be to serve the Churches, Councils and Conferences which are members of the World Council of Churches, and the International Missionary Council as a source of stimulus and knowledge in their approach to international problems, as a medium of common counsel and action, and as their organ in formulating the Christian mind on world issues and in bringing the mind effectively to bear upon such issues.3 This introductory paragraph characterizes the CCIA as an organizational entity in between its mother organizations and international affairs. On the level of normative self-­description, it highlights three dimensions: first, the two-­sided relationship between the CCIA and the sphere of ‘world issues’, second, the complex organizational structure inside the WCC, with its churches, councils and conferences and finally the multifold fields of duty connected to the CCIA as a ‘source of stimulus and knowledge’, a ‘medium of common counsel’, and an ‘organ in formulating the Christian mind’. And these three dimensions are also reflected in the existing research literature on the WCC and the CCIA that is – in comparison to the majority of the other Religious Non-­governmental Organizations/RNGOs – very differentiated and can be described along the lines of three distinct strands: the mainstream of

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   81 the literature is written by ecumenical theologians that touch upon a very wide spectrum of issues (e.g. the notion of the church, the question of solidarity, or the problem of mission and dialogue), and tend to highlight the particular theological concepts that dominated the work of the CCIA with regard to international relations.4 In addition, there is an interesting corpus of literature focusing on the more practical work of the CCIA that is dominated by authors with a professional link to this Commission and interprets its activities in the light of contemporary theological debates.5 The second major strand of literature is written by a relatively small group of sociologists and political scientists. A first group of those non-­theologians highlights the social developments that triggered the establishment of the WCC. Almost paradigmatically, Peter L. Berger contributed to this strand by analysing early ecumenical encounters in the United States of America along the lines of trends towards a religious monopoly.6 A second focus of those debates underlines the role of the WCC in the socio-­cultural changes of the 1960s and 1970s, inter alia criticizing the links to state power.7 Finally, Peter Beyer stands for a third focus that analyses the WCC in terms of globalization theory, proposing an interpretation of the WCC (as well as the UN) in the context of emerging global cooperation.8 Finally, the last few years have seen an increase in the literature on the role of the CCIA that links the above analyses to the overall developments of international relations. With regard to the following considerations, two aspects of these debates are of particular interest. First, there is a corpus of literature highlighting the early years of the CCIA with regard to the UN. In 2005, John Nurser published invaluable contributions on early WCC activities in the field of human rights. Primarily focusing upon the developments directly linked to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Nurser underlined the significant influence of the CCIA (and its first Director, O. Frederick Nolde) on those early human rights debates, arguing that the Commission was particularly important for the insertion of Article 18 (on religious liberty) into the UDHR.9 In a parallel study, Matti Peiponen analysed the first years of the CCIA. This time, however, the focus was on the theological debates that formed the basis for their activities.10 So, taken together, these two publications suggest a high degree of early interdependence between the UN and the CCIA. Second, there is a small but increasing group of researchers that highlight changes in UN-­related activities of the WCC from the 1960s to the 1970s. This strand of debate actually originates in the works of the political scientist Darril Hudson, who published the first analyses on this subject-­matter in 1969 and 1977.11 Focusing on the organizational changes inside the WCC as well as the wide spectrum of international political topics the CCIA touched upon, Hudson published two very detailed analyses that argue for the decrease in significance of the CCIA in international politics based upon increasing integration into the WCC. More recently a project conducted by Katharina Kunter added to these debates, highlighting the influence of the social changes of the ‘long 1960s’ on the development of the WCC in general and the CCIA in particular.12

82   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) Taken together, these two strands of the most recent debates sketch the overall changes dealt with by the following analyses. Unfortunately, however, they do not contribute to the analysis of internal developments that triggered these changes between the earliest UN-­related activities of the CCIA and the developments that dominated the CCIA around 1970. This is precisely the question the following analyses will try to target. Based upon the idea of a look at the black box of religiously affiliated organizations, they will argue that it is not sufficient (even though inevitable) to link these shifts to much more general socio-­ political changes. Along these lines, the following sections present a reconstruction of UN-­ related activities of the CCIA, structured around four distinct phases: 1 2 3 4

the foundation of the Commission under the impression of an establishment of Churches in the world order; the establishment of the CCIA as a Commission between the UN and the WCC, characterized by the expansion of the idea of religious freedom in both contexts; the attempts of CCIA officers to cope with enforced legitimation that was very much linked to the search for an ecumenical contribution to human rights debates, and finally; the establishment of a new generation of CCIA officers that were to become the main protagonists of the ‘mainstreaming’ of human rights inside the WCC.

In doing so, this case analysis will provide insights into the consequences of UN-­ related activities of a worldwide transnational umbrella organization that was – at least during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s – among the best-­known, worldwide organizations with a predominantly Protestant (and later also an Orthodox) background. It highlights the extent to which the work of the CCIA contributed to the early establishment of human rights ideas inside this context, and how these ideas were questioned and re-­defined by different groups of experts – first inside the WCC in general and finally inside the CCIA itself. In other words, the analyses highlight processes that can – in anticipation – be characterized by very strong dynamics, finally leading to major controversies inside the CCIA in particular and the WCC in general. In order to understand these processes the analysis begins with the foundation of the Commission, actually starting from some references to its prehistory.

5.1  Foundation of the Commission – churches in world order (1946–1948) The earliest developments related to the CCIA were dominated by events at the end of World War  II – primarily the victory over Nazi Germany, the shifting power relations in Europe, Africa and Asia, and the establishment of international organizations such as the UN, UNESCO, and Bretton Woods. Under

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   83 these conditions, a number of so-­called ‘ecumenical leaders’ held the opinion that the WCC (at the time still in process of formation) had to participate in international affairs by playing the role of a religious counterpart to the ‘world of nations’. Consequently, they reflected upon how to establish a presence in international affairs, and came to the conclusion that the WCC had to install a commission of experts. Following this line of thought, they recruited a small group of theologians and lay people from North America and Great Britain, who shared a joint background in a particular tradition of Anglo-­Amer­ican theology and became the protagonists of the early activities of the CCIA. 5.1.1  A particular tradition of Anglo-­Amer­ican theology With regard to the following analyses, it is necessary to keep in mind that the ecumenical activities of the twentieth century were very much based upon the ideas of a worldwide Christendom and characterized by a strong emphasis on the establishment of organizational structures that go beyond the nation state.13 In the course of this process, the protagonists inside the CCIA linked themselves to a specific set of major ecumenical conferences reflected in the Preamble to the first Charter of the CCIA (1946): The Ecumenical Movement is at least an approach to world unity among Christians which we may thankfully say that God has blessed, since its ties have held firm throughout all the dreadful political conflicts of these years. [. . .] In the years preceding the war, significant steps were taken by the Ecumenical Movement, and notably at the Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State 1937, to view international affairs in the light of the Christian Gospel. [. . .] The present conference represents the continuation of this process on a wider and more representative basis and is the outcome of a conviction that in this new chapter of history the judgement and guidance of the Christian conscience upon international problems must be clearer and more decisive than hitherto.14 Starting from the general idea of a ‘world unity among Christians’ that needs to provide clearer and more decisive ‘judgement and guidance upon international problems’, the reference to the 1937 Oxford Conference links the CCIA to the so-­called ‘Life and Work’ strand of the ecumenical movement, with its emphasis on social action alongside theological reflection. To put this more generally, the authors of the Preamble inscribe the work of the CCIA into the tradition of the so-­called realist or neo-­Orthodox theology of US Protestantism that coupled reflections on the Kingdom of God and the idea of original sin with an explicit political agenda (thus inter alia criticizing the traditional isolationist stance of US politics as well as pacifist ideas). At the time, this frame of reference included an emphasis on individual human rights15 that is reflected in an early statement on religious liberty, found

84   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) in the CCIA archives, that combines two aspects: first, it emphasizes a perception of human rights based upon the human person, shaped after the image of God. Second, it highlights religious liberty as the core of human rights. We recognize the dignity of the human person as the image of God. We therefore urge that the civic rights which derive from that dignity be set forth in the agreement to which our country may enter looking toward the promotion of world order, and be vindicated in treaty arrangements and in the functions and responsibilities assigned to international organizations. [. . .] More specifically, we urge that: The right of individuals everywhere to religious liberty shall be recognized [. . .]. Religious liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom of worship [. . .]; freedom for the individual to change his religion; [. . .] freedom to preach, educate, publish, and carry on missionary activities; and freedom to organize with others.16 As far as the practical work of the CCIA was concerned, there was one specific person who was instrumental in the establishment of the link between those general debates and the CCIA itself, and this was O. Frederick Nolde – the future Director of the CCIA. Nolde was born in 1899 in a suburb of Philadelphia and later on became not only Professor of Christian Education at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, but also one of the major figures associated with the newly emerging debate on religious freedom and human rights inside mainstream US Protestantism, working as the Executive Secretary of the Joint Committee on Religious Liberty, and a member of the Committee on a Just and Durable Peace (chaired by the future US Secretary of State John F. Dulles). In the 1940s and 1950s, this meant that Nolde was part of a very influential social network inside the USA that was inter alia based upon joint experiences in mission activities as well as political campaigning.17 On this basis, Nolde became one of the main figures that began not only to identify the UN as a new field of action for the WCC but also to link these activities to a specific reading of human rights. 5.1.2  Identifying a relevant yet distinct field of action for the WCC The archives document these earliest processes primarily by a number of letters emerging from the first contacts between Nolde and Willem A. Visser ‘t Hooft (the future General Secretary of the WCC)18 during the mid-­1940s. In the course of this correspondence, Nolde referred increasingly to his own activities in the field of UN-­related human rights debates, which was central in putting this dimension of international affairs (on a personal level) before the future General Secretary of the WCC. Under these conditions, the formal process of the foundation of the CCIA started with a provisional meeting in Geneva (20–23 February 1946) that proposed the establishment of an ecumenical commission dealing with international affairs. At this meeting, the duty to organize a follow-­up conference in Cambridge was

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   85 assigned to the US Commission on a Just and Durable Peace (with Nolde among its members). Six months later, this so-­called Cambridge Conference of Church Leaders on International Affairs (4–7 August 1946) brought together a number of ecumenical dignitaries as well as experts on international politics, and triggered the formal formation of the CCIA. The WCC archives contain a large amount of information on the Cambridge Conference, including detailed transcripts of the debates as well as the main papers presented by notables of the ecumenical movement, such as John F. Dulles (at the time Chairman of the Commission on a Just and Durable Peace), Reinhold Niebuhr (at the time Professor at Union Theological Seminary), Bromley Oxnam (at the time Bishop of the Methodist Church) or Willem Visser ‘t Hooft. These papers not only mirror the theological and national spectrum inside the WCC, they also illustrate that participants at the conference saw themselves confronted with a newly emerging field of action they perceived as distinct from the WCC, and associated inter alia with the UN. This can be spelled out in greater detail with regard to the two introductory speeches of the conference that highlighted two different ways of framing the general idea of WCC activities in this field. On the one hand, Visser ‘t Hooft started from the history of the ecumenical movement and its attempts to deal with what he called ‘international order’: A terribly great duty was imposed upon the Churches at a time when we did not know about the oneness in Christ. From the moment that the oneness became evident, from that moment onwards that fact must find clear expression in relation to the problem of international order. From that moment the Church had to make a contribution utterly different from anything that any other human body in this world could make to this particular problem. The Churches had learned to speak in a new way to the world on the great issues of our time. A new grouping had been formed, such as the United Nations, and vis-­à-vis that organisation the Churches would have to speak a clear and prophetic word.19 On the other hand, John F. Dulles constructed the main task of the conference from the point of view of ‘the world’: The Conference at Cambridge could start with the co[mmon] assurance on the following two propositions. The first that the moral forces of the world – inadequate as they were – were still powerful enough to achieve a just and durable peace. As a second proposition Dr. Dulles felt that Christians could be confident that the political leaders of the world would provide ample occasion for that force to make itself felt. What remained to be determined was whether the Christian forces of the world would take advantage of that great opportunity so that in fact this tremendous potentiality would be able to redeem the political life of the world. That should be the primary policy of the new body to be set up – to make sure that there would be an effective organisation in the world to bring out the religious force.20

86   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) Taken together, these quotations highlight two things. First, they illustrate the different ways in which the field of international affairs was perceived by participants at the conference. Using notions such as international order, great issues of our time, the world, and political leaders of the world, they highlighted the distinction between the religious sphere and this other sphere (interestingly without using the notion of ‘the secular’). Second, they made it very clear to what extent the respective speakers agreed upon the special role of the Church/ the religious forces vis-­à-vis those aspects of international politics, thus highlighting the distinctiveness of the two spheres as well as the alleged significance of the Christian Churches in political contexts – and vice versa. During the following days, the debates at Cambridge focused on a wide spectrum of concrete topics this analysis will not be able to touch upon – including agenda items such as the relationship with Russia, the German question, or the situation in the Far East. With regard to the present analyses, it suffices to say that the conference discussed all these topics, constructing the UN as a distinct, yet significant field of WCC activities. This particular approach to the UN becomes most obvious in a statement presented by O. Frederick Nolde upon the practical side of UN activities.21 This conference has been called on the assumption that the Church has the responsibility of seeking a world of peace and order, justice and brotherhood. [. . . The] problem is to discover ways in which we can testify to our faith. We must reckon with government in its international form, with government in national forms, and with government as organised through conferences [. . . As far as the United Nations organization is concerned the] problem is: here the Churches, representing a minority of the earth’s population; and on the other hand government, or our various governments, presumably responsible for the entire population of the world.22 With this presentation Nolde followed a twofold agenda: on the one hand, he described the UN as a significant context for church action seeking ‘a world of peace, order, justice, and brotherhood’, as well as ‘testifying faith to government in its international form’. On the other hand, he established himself as a major expert for the UN among participants at the conference, thus trying to introduce his own approach to the UN into the WCC. At the time of this statement, there existed, however, no concrete consensus about the future work of the WCC in the UN context. Rather, the participants voiced different forms of critique that were about to become general themes of the debate on the CCIA. This is the place to introduce another protagonist of the history of the CCIA: Kenneth G. Grubb (1900–1980), a British lay person who served in a number of Church and state offices, including the positions of Controller of Overseas Publicity in the English Ministry of Information, and President of the Church Missionary Society. In the aftermath of the Cambridge Conference, Grubb was also to become the first Chairman of the CCIA – holding this position for almost exactly 20 years from 1947 to 1967. Interestingly enough it was Grubb who

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   87 p­ resented one of the most critical points, targeting the adequate organizational structure of the CCIA in order to represent the WCC and its member churches within the context of the UN: One of the fatal errors was for the churches to undertake tasks for which they could not maintain the adequate strength and force. I have serious doubts as to whether we should undertake this task [of founding the CCIA], in view of this. [. . .] I hesitate to recommend a programme of co-­operation with the United Nations, unless the World Council of Churches can see that the church constituencies are thoroughly informed.23 A second theme of the debates referred to the mode of representation open to such a Commission. An unidentified ‘speaker’ remarked that he was: a little worried about the phrase ‘Protestants throughout the world must speak’. We speak only for the WCC, not for the Protestant churches as a whole. In this Conference, each one of us is a trustee for the Slav Orthodox Church. We are inclined to be led astray by our own Western approach.24 Finally, Cyril E. Hudson (at the time Canon at St Albans in Canterbury) questioned the general mode of CCIA action: It is also assumed that the Commission – when formed – will be able to speak prophetic word on behalf of the whole non Roman Christian world. That is a large assumption. Prophetic words are rarely spoken by commissions, but more often by individuals.25 Taken together, these different comments highlight the insecurity that dominated the WCC approach to international affairs during the late 1940s. The participants saw themselves confronted with the legitimate and unavoidable task to be present in the secular context of the UN. They wanted to become active in a sphere they perceived as totally different from their own. At the same time, they were unsure about the ways on which a commission might step upon this new and international stage they constructed internally as a highly significant counterpart to the WCC. Under these conditions, the Cambridge Conference laid the basis for the CCIA and asked Grubb to coordinate its formal foundation.26 5.1.3  Towards the formal foundation of the CCIA In order to further assess the formal decisions, taken at the Cambridge Conference, it is helpful to introduce the heuristic distinction between the level of organizational structures and the level of discourse. In terms of the organizational structure, the most fundamental decision taken by the conference was to found a Commission to act on international affairs – as opposed e.g. to the nomination of a single

88   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) representative or to the allotment of respective tasks to one of the main organs of the WCC. Formally speaking, this Commission brought together two sets of people: On the one hand, it included more than 30 ‘Commissioners’ such as Christian G. Baëta (Africa), Josef L. Hromadka (Czechoslovakia), George K.A. Bell (Great Britain), Klaus Heinemann (Germany), Hamilkar S. Alivisatos (Greece), Charles Malik (Lebanon), Werner Kägi (Switzerland), John F. Dulles (USA), Reinhold Niebuhr (USA), and G. Ashton Oldham (USA) – meeting once a year in varying compositions and serving more or less as external counsellors. On the other hand, the day-­to-day activities of the CCIA were undertaken by a relatively small number of ‘officers’, whose activities produced the better part of the archive material. At the time of the foundation of the CCIA, those officers consisted – besides Grubb and Nolde – of Baron F.M. Van Asbeck (President), E. Philipp Eastman (Secretary in London), and Robert L. Steiner, Jr (Secretary in New York City) working in two offices – one in London and the other one in New York City. As full-­time employees of the WCC (in the beginning only Grubb and Nolde worked without payment), they were in charge of the concrete cooperation between the civil servants and diplomats at the UN as well as their direct partners inside the WCC and its member churches. Though formally employed by the WCC, these officers were surprisingly independent from the organizational structure of the WCC. Referring to time pressure in international affairs, Section 7 (a) of the CCIA Charter (on the aim to discover and declare Christian principles with direct relevance to the relations of nations) states that: ‘Since the Councils meet infrequently, the Commission on International Affairs would, in the interim, have the liberty to speak in its own name, making clear that the Councils had not endorsed the statement.’27 In other words, the Commission was – within the framework set by the official statements of the WCC – quite free to formulate an independent point of view, thus representing an expert contribution rather than a formally legitimized position of the WCC. This translates into Figure 5.1, which sums up the organizational set-­up of the CCIA around the time of its foundation, highlighting its relative independence (1) vis-­à-vis the UN as well as (2) vis-­à-vis its two mother organizations (the WCC and the IMC). As far as the level of discourse is concerned, it has to be emphasized that the Charter asked the Commission to serve the WCC (as well as the IMC, and their member organizations) as ‘a source of stimulus’ in international work. This sketches the work of the CCIA along the lines of two dimensions: (1) the direction of the work targeting the ecumenical movement as well as international politics, and (2) the levels of activity – from stimulus and Council up to action and effective bearing. On this basis, the Charter singled out nine formal aims: (1) the formation of parallel commissions in each country, (2) the gathering and appraisal of materials on the relations of the churches to public affairs, (3) the study of selected problems of international justice and world order, (4) the assignment of specific

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   89 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs UN

Commissioners Officers

IMC

WCC

Figure 5.1  Organizational set-up of the CCIA in the 1950s.

responsibilities and studies to special groups, (5) the organization of study conferences, (6) the call to attention of the churches to problems especially claimant upon the Christian conscience, (7) discovery and declaration of Christian principles with direct relevance to the relations of nations, (8) the representation in relations to international bodies such as the United Nations, and (9) the concertation, from time to time, with other organizations holding similar objectives. Under these preconditions, the following years were dominated by the establishment of the CCIA between the two poles of the WCC and the UN – developing an intermediate position that characterized its early work in general as well as its concept of religious freedom in particular.

5.2  Between UN and WCC – expanding religious freedom (1948–1955) In the aftermath of its formal foundation, the first years of CCIA activities were embedded in the developments of world politics immediately after the end of World War II – and this means primarily in the augmenting tensions between the two political ‘blocs’. As far as the work of the CCIA officers is concerned, it was, however, first and foremost the establishment of the UN and the WCC that set the course of events. The archive materials show that, at the time, the work of the CCIA officers was dominated by attempts to influence both organizations respectively.

90   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) With regard to the analyses at hand, it is also interesting to note that the conceptual work of the CCIA during those early years was dominated by debates on religious freedom. In the forefront of the first General Assembly of the WCC, the CCIA officers (with Nolde in particular) worked on both the wording of the WCC Declaration on Religious Liberty and on Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion at the same time. Both discussions were closely intertwined and this finally led towards a relatively strong position on religious freedom and human rights inside the WCC. In order to understand these processes, it is necessary to begin from Nolde’s early work inside UN, and to keep in mind the precarious position it was starting from. 5.2.1  Starting from a precarious position After the Cambridge Conference, Nolde carried on with his activities in the context of the UN – now in the name of the CCIA. Relying upon his Amer­ican networks, he was able to establish links to the main figures of the human rights debates inside the UN, maintaining particularly close relations with the US-­ Amer­ican delegation as well as with representatives of non-­governmental organizations with an Anglo-­Amer­ican background. In keeping with the tradition of his early work, Nolde’s activities for the CCIA continued to focus on human rights in general and religious freedom in particular – and this despite the fact that neither human rights nor religious liberty played a significant role in Cambridge. The precarious status of these early activities can be illustrated by means of the different ways in which Nolde presented his own position inside respective contexts. In the UN context, Nolde made a strong point for the human rights position of the WCC. In an informal letter to Charles Malik (at the time Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, and about to become President of the UN Economic and Social Council/ECOSOC), he argued in May 1948: In so far as evidence is available, our constituency considers the provisions in the Geneva drafts to constitute the minimum of practices that have been tested in experience and found essential to the observance of religious freedom. [. . .] Accordingly, we believe that every effort should be made to sustain the affirmative terms which are contained in the Geneva draft.28 In other words, Nolde presented himself in this letter as an expert who was well informed about the drafting process of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Geneva and who spoke for a wider group of people, all of them propagating a far-­reaching interpretation of religious freedom and asking for the codification of minimum standards. Correspondingly, he tried to put himself into a strong position to make his point for a far-­reaching article on religious freedom in the Universal Declaration (in the process of being drafted at that time).

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   91 Internally, however, Nolde highlighted the problems he saw himself confronted with inside the WCC. In a paper on ‘Procedures for Consultation with the UN Commission on Human Rights at its Third Session as Suggested by Replies from Church Leaders’, he characterized his approach to human rights, under the conditions of WCC power relations: With respect to articles other than those dealing with religious liberty we have no clear position to submit. We ought to indicate a definite concern for all human rights and, where we can be of assistance, we ought informally to make our help available, especially on such points as commented on by our correspondents. However, it should be kept in mind that the general view we hold with respect to religious liberty carries some important implications for the entire international Bill of Rights.29 In comparison with the letter to Malik, the internal paper is dominated by three significant differences: first, the paper stresses Nolde’s desire to put human rights onto the agenda of the WCC that it had – at the time – no clear position to submit. Second, it highlights that religious freedom (and not human rights in general) was a common denominator inside the WCC. Third, the comparison points out to what an extent the UN constituted a significant frame of reference for the work of the CCIA inside the WCC. Under these conditions, Nolde and his colleagues developed a twofold strategy to establish human rights that was based upon what they perceived as the common ground between the UN and the WCC. This strategy will be described in the next two sections, starting with the attempts to use a broad concept of religious freedom to introduce human rights to the WCC. 5.2.2  Using religious freedom to introduce human rights to the WCC To better understand these processes, it is important to keep in mind that CCIA officers were in constant contact with the different sections of the evolving WCC as well as the first CCIA Commissioners that accompanied the early work of the CCIA. Under these conditions, the initial activities of the WCC on religious freedom and human rights culminated in the first General Assembly of the World Council of Churches taking place in Amsterdam (22 July–4 August 1948) under the motto: ‘Man’s Disorder and God’s Design’. This first meeting of the WCC’s main governing body (with its 351 delegates from 147 member churches) consisted of four main sections: (1) the universal Church in God’s design, (2) the Church’s witness to God’s design, (3) the Church and the disorder of society, and (4) the Church and the international order. In the context of those four sections, the Amsterdam Assembly decided upon the formal constitution of the WCC and the CCIA. In addition, the Amsterdam meeting also introduced the idea of a ‘responsible society’ to the documents of the WCC, thus formulating a notion that was about to dominate the social thinking of the WCC for decades to come.

92   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) In this broader context, Section 1 of the General Assembly was almost exclusively organized by the CCIA, and religious liberty was one of the features of this section.30 The WCC archives provide detailed information about the great deal of time and resources invested by CCIA officers in the preparation of this section as well as the resolutions that were discussed. Moreover, they allow a closer look at the discussions, prior to the adoption of the WCC’s official statement on religious liberty, containing support for as well as critique of the work of Section 4.31 The following quotation from the unpublished Minutes of Section IV gives an idea of the whole spectrum of arguments presented in these debates, highlighting (1) a first reference to the insufficient theological foundation of the WCC’s activities in international affairs, (2) the dispute on the justification of war, as well as (3) the demand to voice a critique of imperialism, racial discrimination, and tyranny: The discussion brought to light a number of conflicting views. All were agreed that the draft was not sufficiently topical, not sufficiently specifically Christian, and that it should be emphasised that there was only one means of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. There were some who condemned it as being too academic, too little prophetic and Bishop Cullberg’s view that ‘the Devil had been cancelled out’ was generally supported. An objection was raised by the Bishop of Chichester that the question as to whether war was an act of justice or not had not even been posed in the document. There was wide divergence of opinion on this point and it was finally AGREED that the Drafting Committee be empowered to coopt a number of persons holding different view points on the matter of peace and war, in order to redraft the relevant section. Other opinions expressed included the desire that the document should speak more strongly against imperialism, racial discrimination and tyranny. There were also a number of specific suggestions as to verbal alternations and additions in the text.32 This criticism did not, however, find any explicit expression in the final papers of the General Assembly. With the exception of well-­known references to the impossibility of finding a joint position on pacifism, the Assembly passed a Declaration on Religious Liberty that followed a twofold agenda. On the one hand, the documents integrated an idea of religious liberty in the main documents of the WCC, that very much echoed the wording of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – about to be published three months later: An essential element in a good international order is freedom of religion. This is an implication of the Christian faith and of the worldwide nature of Christianity. Christians, therefore, view the question of religious freedom as an international problem. They are concerned that religious freedom be everywhere secured. [. . .] The rights of religious freedom herein declared shall

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   93 be recognised and observed for all persons without distinction as to race, sex, language, colour or religion, and without imposition of disabilities by virtue of legal provisions and administrative acts.33 On the other hand, the declaration tried to expand this general idea of religious liberty. The statement concludes with a list of rights the authors associated with religious freedom, that covers almost the whole field of liberal human rights. To quote but the first part of this list: 1. Every person has the right to determine his own faith and creed [. . .] 2. Every person has the right to express his religious beliefs in worship, teaching and practice, and to proclaim the implications of his beliefs for relationships in a social and political community. [. . .] 3. Every person has the right to associate with others and to organise with them for religious purposes. [. . .] 4. Every religious organisation, formed or maintained by action in accordance with the rights of individual persons, has the right to determine its policies and practices for the accomplishment of its chosen purposes.34 In order to assess the significance of the developments that are documented in these two quotations, it is helpful to introduce a comparison with the statement of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America/FCCCA quoted above. Against this background, it is interesting to see that the Amsterdam resolution is actually characterized by an inversion of the argumentational structure. It does not start from the human person shaped after the image of God, but from religious freedom as an essential element of a good international order. On this basis, the 1948 statement describes the concept of religious freedom as an ‘international problem’ – not an idea particularly linked to Christian conviction. At the same time, however, religious freedom becomes an anchor for the establishment of human rights in general. Presupposing the acceptance of religious freedom as an unquestioned ideal inside the WCC, the Declaration introduced a much more detailed catalogue of human rights that reflects the respective debates around the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In other words, this Declaration presented a new approach to human rights that can be directly linked to the interrelations between the WCC and the UN, and that used religious freedom to introduce a wide range of social human rights into an official WCC document. In this respect, the Amsterdam Statement provides an insight into the interdependences between UN debates and the human rights position of the WCC. Moreover, the whole structure of this argument (as well as the structure of the Assembly debates) helps us to assess the standing of the CCIA inside the WCC. The members of the section, as well as the plenary session of the General Assembly, accepted the second draft of CCIA-­drafted resolutions – including the Declaration on Religious Liberty – with nothing but minor changes. In other words, the officers of the CCIA implemented their point of view in one of the main early documents of the WCC that was about to become a cornerstone of its rhetoric on human rights.35

94   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) At the same time, Nolde continued his work to introduce a notion of religious freedom inside the UN that was as wide as possible. Using the resolutions of the General Assembly, he tried to push his point, quoting, primarily, a general support for human rights and not the concrete references to religious liberty. So, this is the second strategy he applied to establish a human rights discourse. 5.2.3  Expanding religious freedom inside the UN context In order to put this second strategy into practice, Nolde was a consistent participant at the UN sessions on the wording of Article 18 (religious freedom) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948). At the end of September 1948 he even addressed individual letters to national delegations to the UN and underlined general WCC support of UN attempts to pass a human rights agenda. In a detailed report to the WCC written one month before the final decision on the Universal Declaration, Nolde describes his activities in the following way: The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs was presented by a consultant or observer at all the United Nations Sessions where the International Bill was under consideration. Through formal memoranda, letters and personal interviews the position of the churches was set before the delegations and secretariat. Following the Second Session of the Human Rights Commission at Geneva in December 1947, the texts of the Declaration and the Covenant were sent to the church agencies and leaders with whom the C.C.I.A. is authorized to communicate.36 This report provides an idea of the mode of activities pursued by Nolde and his colleagues inside the UN. First of all, they described themselves as representatives at eye-­level with UN diplomats. In other words, they tried to establish themselves among diplomats at the UN in order to influence their decisions. At the same time, the report restates the main aim of the CCIA in the context of these debates, highlighting the position the officers developed throughout the last months. It underlines the fact that Nolde tried primarily to expand the notion of religious liberty, thus bypassing controversies inside the WCC and affirming the conceptions inside the UN: Reaction from thirty-­seven countries and from leaders assembled in international conferences revealed an almost unanimous view that the provisions of Article 16 [the future Article 18] represented a minimum of what had been tested in experience and found essential to the observance of religious freedom. Largely through the instrumentality of the C.C.I.A., a text was achieved which was sufficiently comprehensive and explicit, and thus adequate for the purposes of a Declaration. Accordingly, when the Paris Session of the General Assembly was convened, the task facing the representative of the C.C.I.A. was

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   95 in the first instance to seek the retention of the provisions for religious freedom contained in the draft Declaration. Numerous minor changes in other articles commanded secondary and more informal attention.37 As far as the general statements of the WCC are concerned, this turned out to be a successful strategy. Among the protagonists inside the WCC, Article 18 was widely perceived to provide a considerable range of religious freedoms. In a short letter a month before the official vote on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Visser ‘t Hooft congratulated Nolde: I have received your preliminary report on the Paris Assembly work and I must tell you that I found this a most extraordinarily interesting document. [. . .] I know enough of the situation to realize that article 16 would probably be a heap of ruins by now if you had not worked so hard and so intelligently to protect it from all onslaughts. If it becomes international law, you will always be able to feel that this is in a very special sense your article.38 In sum, the reference to religious freedom became a common denominator of WCC statements as well as the basis for the consolidation of the CCIA in the context of the UN and the WCC. Despite the precarious situation of the CCIA, its position was integrated into a basic document of the WCC. In this respect, it is possible to describe the decade after the Amsterdam Assembly and the adaption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris as an ongoing process of consolidation. 5.2.4  Consolidating international work This is not the place to reconstruct these developments in any detail. Suffice to note that the following years saw an organizational consolidation of CCIA: from 1950 onwards, the CCIA acquired a core team of officers that stayed constant up to the mid-­1960s. In addition to van Asbeck (1947–1953), Grubb (1947–1967), Nolde (1947–1968), and Eastman (1947–1955), the following persons joined the CCIA in senior positions: Richard M. Fagley (Executive Secretary in New York, 1950–1965), Elfan Rees (Secretary in Geneva and Europe, 1951–1970), Werner Kägi (Vice-­Chairman, 1954–1965), Dominique Micheli (Secretary in New York and Geneva, 1955–1968), Alan R. Booth (Secretary in London, 1957–1968). With the exception of Kägi (a historian at the University of Basel), all these new officers were theologians by training. Throughout the 1950s, the members of this team continued to participate in most of the early UN commissions and sub-­commissions, trying to secure a WCC presence in Geneva, Lake Success, and New York City, as well as documentation of respective activities vis-­à-vis the WCC. In doing so, they covered a wide spectrum of activities: they served as an international arbitration board in charge of all those international political conflicts that affected the member churches; they tried to articulate the position of the WCC on every major international conflict

96   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) (such as Korea, the Congo, etc.); and finally, they continued to sustain channels of communication with the UN. In other words, the CCIA staff were dragged into the daily work of the UN. As a group, they became an established external partner of at least some of the protagonists inside the UN, who tried to participate in a wide spectrum of UN activities. The archive materials paint a vivid picture of their attempts to take part in debates at UN headquarters in New York City, trying to keep in personal contact with delegates as well as UN civil servants and their partners from other NGOs. Moreover, CCIA officers kept on pursuing the approach to represent the WCC in UN circles that they had developed throughout the first years of their activities. In a letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, Grubb presented for example the following summary of his own understanding of the work of the CCIA inside the WCC: I think it might be said [. . .] that what the C.C.I.A. has tried to do is to seize an initiative in the specific and day-­to-day measures necessary to secure a just settlement of disputes as they arise. This, thanks to Fred Nolde, we have been able to do. There are not a few examples in the past, and his current work on the Mexican proposals is a good example at this very moment. To my mind this is more valuable by far, if less spectacular, than an initiative on peace in general. But it cannot be done by a conference: in the nature of the case it can only be done by actual work on immediate problems at the point and time where they arise.39 Up to the second General Assembly of the WCC in Evanston (in 1954 under the motto ‘Christ – the Hope of the World’), this approach became the common denominator of CCIA activities inside the WCC. In matters of international affairs, it was once again the CCIA that was in charge of a particular Section (Section IV) dealing exclusively with international politics. The respective documents more or less repeated the statements of Amsterdam without any fundamental changes. As far as human rights were concerned, the Evanston Assembly passed documents with reference to the general significance of religious liberty without further critique. Moreover, the CCIA contributed to a general ‘Appeal from the World Council of Churches’ that included some general references to international politics. In this respect, there were no general differences between the overall content of the CCIA’s work in 1948 and 1954. It was, rather, during the aftermath of Evanston that a new strand of developments started to change the work of the CCIA. Between 1955 and 1965, officers were confronted with the search for an ecumenical contribution to their core activities that forced them to find a new legitimation for their own work.

5.3  Enforced legitimation – search for an ecumenical contribution (1955–1965) To understand the changes that occurred around 1950, it is helpful to see this decade as a time of transition. As far as the conceptual work of the UN is

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   97 c­ oncerned, the second half of the 1950s stands between a period of dynamic standard-­setting in international politics and a phase of implementation of these early standards that started in the mid-­1960s. Inside the WCC, the time leading up to the Third General Assembly in New Delhi (1961) was dominated by attempts to widen the scope of WCC membership beyond European and North Amer­ican Protestantism. The so-­called ‘younger churches’ entered slowly into the WCC inter alia re-­shaping its idea of mission (e.g. indicated by the integration of the IMC into the WCC) as well as the power relations inside the decision­making bodies of the WCC (moving away from the dominance of North America and Western Europe towards an increasing membership from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe). In terms of the WCC’s work on human rights, these years were dominated by changes that laid the basis for the following developments. On the level of day-­to-day activities, CCIA officers were still able to follow their traditional policy. On a more general level, however, they saw themselves confronted with first attempts from within the WCC to reformulate the approach to some of the topics traditionally associated with the work of the CCIA – first of all  in relation to religious freedom. CCIA officers themselves contributed to  these changes, with their attempt to establish the idea of what they described as an international ethos as their specific contribution to international affairs. In order to highlight the dynamics of these developments, the following sections will focus on three intertwined trends – all of them dealing with human rights: 1 2 3

the continuation of day-­to-day activities the formulation of an international ethos, and the debate on a theological basis of religious freedom.

5.3.1  Continuation of day-­to-day activities The first of these trends was linked to a debate that emerged inside the UN. In the midst of stagnating discussions on the human rights covenants, a Sub-­ Commission of the Human Rights Commission of the Economic and Social Council/ECOSOC decided in 1956 to initiate a Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices (Rapporteur Arcot Krishnaswami). In other words, almost a decade after the WCC Declaration on Religious Liberty and the respective discussions around the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a specialized commission at the UN picked up on one of the defining discussions of the CCIA. Interestingly enough, CCIA officers were at first reluctant to contribute to this study. Almost immediately after the UN decision to start the work and to invite NGOs to contribute information, CCIA officer Dominique Micheli wrote an internal paper presenting a tentative summary of WCC discussions on the pros and cons of participation:

98   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) You will recall that active participation on the part of the C.C.I.A. was not encouraged last year, especially when the matter was discussed at the I.M.C. Staff Conference in Oxford. The C.C.I.A. Executive Committee in Davos recorded a minute which ‘authorizes C.C.I.A. officers to cooperate to the extent that the Commission’s competence and resources will permit’. Fred Nolde, before leaving for Australia, agreed that the same reasons which determined an attitude of caution and reservation still hold. On the other hand he pointed out that it might be somewhat difficult to make clear why C.C.I.A. is not contributing any information on an issue which is so direct and permanent a concern to both parent bodies. He suggested that a memorandum along these lines be prepared, informing W.C.C. and I.M.C. officers of the decision of the Sub-­Commission to undertake this study in 1956.40 This whole paper is dominated by a basic reluctance to enter these discussions. It is a document of basic reservation that must, however, not be mistaken for an increasing opposition to the ideal of religious freedom. In the above communication, Micheli rather refers to a strategic dilemma that officials of the CCIA and the WCC saw themselves confronted with. On the one hand, he stresses a certain uneasiness to provide material on restrictions upon religious liberty in countries behind the iron curtain (with the debates on Orthodox cooperation inside the WCC reaching a first climax). On the other hand, he refers to increasing competition with the Holy See (which started to enter the international scene from the late 1950s onwards), which allegedly felt no comparable restraints to expose restrictions outside Catholic countries. Despite this initial uneasiness, CCIA officers finally started to cooperate with the Krishnaswami Commission, once again focusing on the general concept of religious freedom. In one of the papers they put before the Commission, they present their main argument in the following way: The remarks contained in the Memorandum lead to the conclusion that two important factors need to be considered in connection with each individual situation: (a) The extent to which religious rights are safeguarded in domestic constitutions and laws, in conformity with the standards set forth in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration. (b) The extent to which factors governing the general attitude and administrative practices of the State in matters of religious and related human rights may strengthen or limit the effectiveness of provisions for religious liberty.41 So, generally speaking, CCIA officers perceived the UN-­related discourse on religious rights and practices as an opportunity to fall back upon their traditional approach. Arguing for an inclusive concept of religious freedom, they just added an increasing focus on the right of the state to set the limits of religious freedom. In other words, inside the UN context, CCIA officers tried to defend the status quo of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, highlighting their traditional point that freedom of religion has to include the freedom to manifest religion or

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   99 belief in practice, to exercise corporate rights of religious organizations, and to manifest one’s own teachings.42 Around the same time, however, CCIA officers tried to initiate a debate inside the WCC dealing with the general foundations of international affairs – using the idea of an international ethos. 5.3.2  Formulation of an international ethos for international politics This second trend started almost immediately after the second General Assembly of the WCC. In the aftermath of Evanston, CCIA officers renewed a discussion on the formulation of an international ethos that referred back to a paper presented by the Swiss scholar and diplomat Max Huber to the Oxford Conference of 1937.43 In this paper, Huber introduced the idea of a collective ethos as a typically Christian contribution to international law. He argued for a special role of Christianity in international relations, using strong theological rhetoric based upon Christian revelation, the unity of the Church, and its historic links to state and nation. For the Christian ethos in the question of international relations a twofold fact must be borne in mind: on the one hand, the directly personal attitude of the human being who is dependent on himself alone and not at the same time also on others, the distinctively personal, the condition of the person who is permeated with the sense of the presence of God, and of his responsibility for his neighbour; and then the responsibility of the Christian as a member of a national community over and against his fellow creatures of another national community.44 In 1955, CCIA Commissioners and officers fell back upon this argument introducing, however, two noteworthy changes: first, the new approach highlighted the future significance – rather than the present-­day contents – of an international ethos. Second, CCIA officers exchanged the explicit references to Christian theology for a more general reference to the notion of ‘God’s will’: Underlying the more obvious barriers to a genuine world community is the lack of a common foundation of moral principles. At the root of the most stubborn conflicts is the failure of governments and peoples to treasure any common set of guiding principles. [. . .] The world of nations desperately needs an international ethos to provide a sound groundwork for the development of international law and institutions. This requires not only attempts to find wider areas of common moral understanding but also efforts to bring the guiding principles of international life into greater harmony with God’s will.45 In internal debates, the officers tried to elaborate upon this new concept of an ‘international ethos’. On 25 and 26 July 1956, Kägi and Fagley organized, for

100   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) example, a well-­documented workshop in Bad Herrenalb46 in order to prepare a far-­reaching study to open this concept to wider debate: 1. The Meaning and Relevance of an International Ethos, 2. The Christian Understanding of an International Ethos (from the Bible up to Modern Roman Catholic Thought), 3. The Lack of International Ethos in Modern Society, 4. Possibilities of an International Ethos? (with references to the Soviet World, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and China), and 5. Potentialities for an International Ethos?47 These plans, however, were never put into effect. Right into the 1960s, the main documents of the CCIA as well as the WCC kept on referring to the general idea of an international ethos. These references were, however, in no way linked to any substantive internal debate. Despite the obvious failure, this short episode helps to understand some of the changes that were taking place inside the CCIA. First, it shows that CCIA officers felt the need to formulate a general concept legitimizing their practical work. Second, it underlines that they did this in general terms that are open to positive interpretation from different religious traditions (quite similar to those concepts Robert Bellah described around the same time as ‘civil religion’). Finally, it illustrates that this attempt was not capable of winning general support – neither in the UN context, nor in the context of the WCC.48 Instead, the following years saw the establishment of a third strand of human rights-­related discussions inside the WCC dealing with the theological basis of religious freedom, this time, however, triggered outside the CCIA and with only limited participation from the CCIA. 5.3.3  Debate on a theological basis of religious freedom This third strand started from a meeting of WCC officials that took place in 1958. In the aftermath of this meeting, its participants started a study of what they called the theological foundation of religious freedom that was to be undertaken by the Roman Catholic theologian Angel F. Carrillo de Albornoz. Even though initially excluded from this process, CCIA protagonists reacted almost immediately to this initiative.49 On 11 March 1958, Nolde wrote a critical letter to Visser ‘t Hooft questioning the very need to discuss the theological basis of religious freedom: There seems to be general agreement that a theological study is needed. The question which arose at the London meeting – as to whether the Christian concept of religious liberty has a primary theological basis or whether it must be derived from the Christian concept of man – is one to which the study should address itself. If the study should find that there is no primary theological basis for religious liberty and ‘that man has only the right to be right’, the study must also deal with the Christian view towards coercion in maintaining or changing one’s beliefs and practices.50

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   101 As far as the analyses at hand are concerned, it is interesting to see the extent to which this process was perceived by the director of the CCIA as a challenge to the position of the Commission inside the WCC. In this respect it can be argued that these discussions really added a new quality to the discussion on religious freedom and human rights inside the WCC. From the point of view of CCIA officers, it stands for the confrontation of the CCIA with a new approach to one of their core fields of activity. As far as the WCC is concerned, it stands for a first attempt to link the human rights discourse to the theological discourse. Either way, the quality of these discussions started to change. In the course of this process, CCIA officers took the decision to fall back upon their status as UN experts, highlighting a division of labour between practical work and theological considerations. In other words, in the light of a new type of interest in religious freedom, they seemed to be quite willing to reduce their own role in the respective debate, thus securing a rather technical approach. And, indeed, this particular framing became more and more widespread inside the WCC. In two letters, Visser ‘t Hooft assigned a position to the CCIA that focused on ‘methodology’ and ‘concrete situations’: As to the C.C.I.A. presentation [of the subject of Religious Liberty at the Central Committee meeting] I would prefer Fred’s second proposal namely to ask one C.C.I.A. officer to deal with methodology and another to present some 3 concrete situations. I fear that if we have six different presentations the discussion might well become somewhat chaotic. But it seems to me that the C.C.I.A. itself should finally decide which of these methods it prefers.51 From the point of view of the CCIA, this new development stands for a twofold process. First, it illustrates an increasing interest in debates on human rights inside the WCC in general and the attempt to frame it theologically. Second, it stands for an increasing division of labour inside the WCC that influenced the CCIA right into the 1960s. In this period, CCIA officers were no longer perceived as the general representatives of the WCC in ‘the world of nations’, but rather as a much more narrow instrument to communicate WCC positions to the UN. Along those lines, CCIA officers participated only half-­heartedly in the debates on the theological foundation of religious freedom.52 They concentrated their activities on the proposed paper on strategy that only covered – from its first draft version onwards –the field of activities in relation to governments and intergovernmental agencies: The specific measures here suggested are derived from an analysis of the actual forces which cause religious liberty to be curtailed or violated. These measures are of three kinds: affirmative, preventive and remedial [. . .]. By affirmative action is meant the planned procedure for promoting full practice of religious freedom. [. . . P]reventive action, as here understood,

102   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) involves the identification of circumstances which, if no measures are taken, will in all likelihood result in the violation of religious freedom. [. . .] Remedial action is called for when a situation has reached the point where discrimination actually occurs.53 The quotation from this strategy paper shows to the extent to which CCIA officers tried to superimpose their own (more technical) reading of human rights upon the WCC in general. And this approach also dominated the cooperation with Angel F. Carrillo de Albornoz, who presented a ‘first rough draft’ of his study on religious liberty54 to a meeting in Spittal (2–3 August 1959).55 The protagonists inside the CCIA criticized this initial draft in such a way that it finally developed into a short resolution on religious freedom that did not expand upon the theological basis of religious freedom but rather re-­arranged pre-­existing positions inside the WCC context on religious liberty in a new paper,56 to be presented to the next General Assembly of the WCC. So, once again, internal changes culminated in a General Assembly – this time the 1961 Assembly in New Delhi (with the motto: ‘Jesus Christ – the Light of the World’). At this assembly, CCIA officers were still able to maintain their slightly modified status inside the WCC. 5.3.4  Maintaining the status of UN experts Generally speaking, the New Delhi Assembly – with its sections on: (1) witness, (2) service, and (3) unity – is most prominently associated with the reformulation of the Basis of the WCC that opened the way towards an increasing integration of Orthodox churches (among other things implying a greater influence from Eastern Europe). Moreover, it saw a wider opening of the WCC towards co-­operation with other religious traditions that later on developed into a significant – even though controversial – strand of WCC activity. As far as the analyses at hand are concerned, the significance of New Delhi is as ambivalent as the three trends presented above. In terms of the formal positioning of the CCIA, New Delhi – unlike the first two General Assemblies – did not see any section that was focusing on international affairs as an identifiable subject. The planning committees rather scheduled a joint service section (bringing together such diverse subjects as Christian Witness and other Faiths, Communicating the Gospel, or the Laity Department), and a smaller meeting that provided the CCIA with the opportunity to present its own work in the course of the Assembly. In other words, the organizers of the Assembly seemed to integrate international affairs into a wider set of debates, while simultaneously retaining the special position of the CCIA. Despite these changes, New Delhi discussed two statements with an explicit link to international relations that followed the approach of the CCIA. On the one hand, it passed the revised statement on religious liberty compiled by Carrillo de Albornoz. On the other hand, it presented an ‘Appeal to all Governments and Peoples’ – adopted by the Assembly in the business session:

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   103 1. The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches, at which are gathered Christians from all parts of the world, addresses this Appeal to the governments and people of every nation. 2. Today, war itself is a common enemy. War is an offence to the nature of man. The future of many generations and the heritage of ages past hang in the balance. They are now easy to destroy, since the actions or miscalculations of a few can bring about a holocaust. They are harder to safeguard and advance, for that requires the dedicated action of all.57 So, at first sight, the Assembly documents suggest that New Delhi was a successful attempt of the CCIA to defend its own approach and position inside the WCC. And this general impression can further be supported by the observation that O. Frederick Nolde was appointed one of the new Vice-­General Secretaries of the WCC, and that the CCIA-­related debates did not originate any challenges. The statement on religious liberty followed the prepared wording, and the General Assembly did not question the report on the work of the CCIA in any significant way. Nevertheless, one has to keep the underlying ambivalences in mind. On the one hand, traditional UN-­related topics became more and more central inside the WCC. On the other hand, the respective debates and activities became more and more independent from the CCIA, thus forcing its officers on the defensive. In other words, while the UN-­related activities of the CCIA lost ground inside the WCC, topics formerly associated with the UN started to gain further significance inside the WCC. CCIA officers interpreted these developments as an increasing critique of CCIA action. Early on, Kenneth Grubb – in a letter to Visser ‘t Hooft – saw these changes as an increasing influence of the study department inside the WCC.58 About 18 months later, Grubb’s direct colleague, Alan Booth, put the same observation more abstractly (and with a telling reference to Exodus 1:8): It is whether CCIA itself is moving into the second stage of its life. We have the impression here that the generation that knew not Joseph is less inclined to permit CCIA its freedom to get on with the job in the way that we have done up to now. If this is true, we shall need to devise means of establishing our own groups who really appreciate what we are about. It is this that lies at the back of much of the foregoing.59 This marks the beginning of an increasing re-­shaping of the work of the WCC as well as the CCIA, to be accompanied by basic changes among its officers. From the mid-­1960s onwards, a new generation of WCC officers increased the effort to mainstream human rights inside the WCC, accompanied by redefining of the CCIA.

104   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA)

5.4  A new generation – mainstreaming human rights (1965–1974) These changes were, of course, embedded in the major social developments associated with the 1960s. As has already been described in the previous chapter, the mid-­1960s can be characterized as a period of fundamental changes. In international politics, they saw the acceleration of the process of de-­colonialization as well as the first peaks of the activities of the so-­called new social movements fighting, for example, for civil rights and against the Vietnam War. Both developments entered the WCC almost immediately, via the new theological debates associated with names such as José Míguez Bonino and Gustavo Gutiérrez, and notions such as the theology of revolution or theology of hope.60 All this led to increasing pressure on the CCIA. CCIA activities, as well as the overall position of the Commission inside the WCC, changed considerably. The source materials describe these changes primarily in terms of a conflict between different sections of the WCC and different generations of officers. The developments document, however, much more fundamental socio-­cultural processes. During the second half of the 1960s, the whole mode of CCIA activities changed towards a more public approach to international affairs in general and the UN in particular. These developments can be described along the lines of two interlinked processes: (1) the reconstruction of the perception of the UN as an institution of a worldwide public and (2) the reinterpretation of human rights as a frame of reference for all WCC activities. Under these conditions, the ‘new’ CCIA developed into an integral part of the WCC, with its officers finally becoming instrumental in the general establishment of human rights thinking inside the WCC. 5.4.1  Increasing challenges from inside the WCC In the course of these processes, the 1966 World Conference on Church and Society (taking place in Geneva) was perceived by its contemporaries as a step towards a fundamental change of the WCC’s social thinking as well as the general layout of its theology.61 In his introduction to the Conference, Visser ‘t Hooft described the respective challenges in the following way: It seems to me very clear that we must very especially work out two new dimensions of the concept [of responsible society]. The first is that of a responsible world society in which each nation feels responsible for the welfare of all other nations. [. . .] U Thant has said rightly ‘I think the widening gulf between the “haves” and the “have-­nots” constitutes a more serious threat to international peace and security than any other rifts, either ideological or racial.’ [. . .] The other dimension of the responsible society which needs to be presented with far greater clarity has to do with the place of man in the new highly organised society.62

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   105 In the present context, this quotation presents two tentative references towards a changing self-­conception of international activities of the WCC in general. First, Visser ‘t Hooft argues that the WCC has to increase its focus upon a ‘responsible world society’ (as opposed to a ‘responsible society’), thus hinting towards world affairs (as opposed to international affairs) as an increasingly significant frame of reference for the WCC as a whole. Second, he refers to U Thant (at the time the Secretary General of the UN) as a source of legitimation for his own point of view – and no longer as the leading representative of an organization, attributed to the distinct social sphere of the secular UN. Interestingly enough, CCIA officers were – right from the start – critical of the Conference. Instead of accommodating this new approach to international affairs, they – once again – continued to argue for the division of labour they agreed upon in the face of theological debates on religious freedom: In the particular realm of international affairs the Church and Society Conference should not, and in view of its membership cannot, properly embark on the business of defining policies of the W.C.C. We got it agreed in Geneva with Paul Albrecht, Bishop Moseley, M.M. Thomas and others, that the function of the conference was to deepen the understanding of the Christian witness in international affairs and not to make policy announcements.63 Unlike the situation about a decade ago, the CCIA was, however, confronted with a new set of actors and opinions that were gaining significant strength inside the WCC. Among CCIA officers it was primarily Micheli who perceived this new situation as a considerable danger for the position of the CCIA, arguing that ‘we will not be consulted unless we ask to be consulted.’64 And this is what actually happened. CCIA officers participated in the debates of the Church and Society Conference without any substantive impact.65 This shift in the internal power relations of the WCC formed the basis for increasing modification of the work of the CCIA that found its first expression in the ‘The Hague Consultation on the CCIA’ (taking place from 12 to 17 April 1967). 5.4.2  Reconsidering the work of the CCIA In order to understand the significance of The Hague for the present analyses, one has to keep in mind that the history of this Consultation dates back to a decision taken at a meeting of the WCC Central Committee in 1965, to reconsider the guiding principles of the CCIA. Frequently described as a follow-­up to the Cambridge Conference of 1946, The Hague developed into the culmination point of the discussions on the very approach of the CCIA to international politics as well as the question of its position inside the WCC. Like Cambridge, The Hague was first and foremost a meeting of experts – attracting around 70 participants. In contrast to Cambridge, however, the consultation turned out to be no place to discuss concrete political developments such

106   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) as the war in Vietnam, the situation in the Eastern Bloc or the developments in Latin America. Rather, it was dominated by much more general questions that finally led to the establishment of three working parties dealing with (1) Theological Presuppositions, (2) Major Concerns and Priorities in International Affairs, and (3) Implementation and Instrumentation.66 The final reports of all these parties argued for a modest threefold reconsideration of the work of the CCIA. First, the Consultation asked for a widening of the WCC discussions on international affairs beyond the CCIA. Interestingly enough, it was the final report of the first working party, that reads: An ‘effort was made to secure participation as widely representative as possible of the ecclesiastical and geographical composition of the total W.C.C. membership’.67 In other words, international affairs were perceived as a task for the whole WCC that must not be dominated by the officers and Commissioners of the CCIA. Second, even though the UN formed a significant aspect of the discussions that followed the reports of the working-­parties, it was no major object of the reports themselves: ‘The Chairman of Working Party II stressed, from his own experience at the U.N., the broad range of contacts actually maintained on major issues. [. . .] Representation, it was pointed out, should not necessarily be to the United Nations only.’ 68 To put it differently, the focus on the UN became a controversial signum for the bias of the practical work of the CCIA. Finally, the debates dealt with the modes of representation that underlie the work of the CCIA. The final section of the third report re-­emphasized the limited authority of WCC statements: It should be recalled that at no time can the W.C.C. make statements on behalf of the churches, unless it is expressively asked to do so. Statements have weight only insofar as there is wisdom in them and consequently insofar as anybody wants to attach any authority to them.69 Correspondingly, The Hague relativized the authority of the statements of the CCIA. All these aspects reflect one general trend. In the course of the consultation, the CCIA became an ambivalent metaphor for the general commitment of the WCC to world affairs. On the one hand, the participants questioned the division of labour the CCIA officers had been promoting over the last decades. On the other hand, the final statements of the consultation argued for an increasing significance of international activities inside the WCC. In sum, this new situation can be summarized in Figure 5.2 reflecting the organizational structure of the CCIA. In comparison with the mid-­1940s, the situation at the The Hague Conference was dominated by two distinct changes. On the one hand, the officers of the CCIA had become the main protagonists with relation to the UN. On the other hand, these activities developed into a more and more distinct aspect of the overall activities of the WCC (and the IMC that merged with the WCC in 1961). While this second trend tends to dominate the following two decades, it entailed

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   107 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs UN

Commissioners Officers

WCC + IMC

Figure 5.2  Organizational set-up of the CCIA in the 1970s.

an increasing dominance of the General Secretariat of the WCC with regard to international relations – finally transforming the CCIA into a specialized commission of the WCC. As far as the level of discourse is concerned, these general changes become most obvious in the introduction to an accompanying special issue of the Ecumenical Review, celebrating 20 years of CCIA written by Eugene Carson Blake (the General Secretary of the WCC from 1966 to 1972). Almost immediately after The Hague, this text described the aspect of ‘political action’ as the central motive of CCIA-­related debates inside the WCC: First of all it is clear that in such a complex and controversial area as that of International Affairs, criticism is inevitable. [. . .] If one were to sum up in a single phrase most of the criticisms, voiced to date, it might be put that the CCIA has been too political in its orientation and activities. But this expression ‘too political’ has several meanings. Some mean that a theology of the Churches’ participation in international affairs has not been sufficiently developed or followed. Others mean by ‘too political’ that too much time and attention has been given to quiet and diplomatic cultivation of national and international leaders of the United Nations available for contact in New York and Geneva. This they feel has led to a relative neglect of either a) the education of the churches, or b) a more specific Christian witness, or c) opportunities for becoming more fully involved in the non-­political activities of the United Nations Organization, particularly through its Specialised

108   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) Agencies. Finally some critics mean by ‘too political’ such widely disparate criticism as failure adequately to represent Eastern ideology of ‘third world’ views, or as, on the other hand, leading the Churches away from their only true business which is ‘preaching the Gospel’.70 During the following years, these developments laid the basis for the formation of a new approach to international affairs presented at the Fourth General Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968). 5.4.3  Formation of a new approach towards human rights and the UN Already the motto of the Uppsala Assembly (‘Behold, I make All Things new’) indicates that it was perceived as a new starting-­point for the activities of the WCC. Between 4 July and 20 July 1968, 704 official delegates from 135 churches discussed a wide array of issues organized along the lines of six sections: (1) the Holy Spirit and the Catholicity of the Church, (2) renewal in mission, (3) world economic and social development, (4) towards justice and peace in international affairs, (5) worship, and (6) towards new styles of living. In the context of this book, it is interesting to see that a wide range of the respective sections, sessions, reports, and meetings dealt with topics formerly associated with the work of the CCIA. Subjects such as the Church in the world, human rights, justice, and peace in international affairs were, however, no longer exclusively linked to the CCIA. The CCIA rather participated in two major Commissions of the Assembly: Commission IV: Towards Justice and Peace in International Affairs, and Commission III: World Economic and Social Development – without exercising exclusive control over the discussions.71 From the point of view of CCIA officers, this was the result of an ongoing struggle inside the WCC. The archive materials that document the run-­up to the  conference were dominated by ever greater controversy between the CCIA and the study department of the WCC. A whole string of letters, memos, and memoranda dealt, for example, with the coverage of an issue that was just about to emerge on the centre stage of international politics – the question of development. In a letter to Nolde, Fagley provided a summary of his own impression on the subject, arguing that the officers of the study department tried to deal exclusively with this topic, without further reference to his own work in the field: In the Preparatory Booklet for Uppsala, ‘All Things New’, [. . .] Hayward, A[l]brecht & Co. attempt a neat swindle of C.C.I.A. in the treatment of Sections III and IV, which I trust you will protest before the plans for Section IV get loused up, with possible grave injury to the future of the C.C.I.A. [. . .] In this way our studious colleagues put forward a claim to the whole ball of wax. The reverse side of this medal is a careful avoidance of any reference to the crucial economic and social aspects of international affairs, in

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   109 the description of Section IV. [. . .] The silly thing about this manoeuvre is that the subject of development is big enough for the Section III boys to devote all their new-­found enthusiasm to the subject without attempting to emasculate C.C.I.A. or destroy the creative balance of Section IV.72 This quotation provides a first idea of the general atmosphere inside the WCC that finally triggered the re-­formulation of the CCIA Charter (now called a Constitution) and introduced two major changes. On the one hand, the new Constitution included a new section on general aims that framed the work of the CCIA with explicit references to Christian theology: It shall be the task of the Commission to witness to the lordship of Christ over man and history by serving mankind in the field of international relations and promoting reconciliation and world community in accordance with the Biblical testimony to the oneness of mankind by creation; to God’s gracious and redemptive action in history; and to the assurance of the coming Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ. This service is demanded by the Church’s participation in the continuing ministry of Christ in the world of priestly intercession, prophetic judgement, the arousing of hope and conscience, and pastoral care for mankind. This task necessitates engagement in immediate and concrete issues as well as the formulation of general Christian aims and purposes.73 On the other hand, the 1968 Constitution established closer, formalized links between the CCIA and the ‘the Churches’ (Section XII), ‘Governments and Inter-­governmental Bodies’ (Section XIII), and ‘Other Organizations’ (Section XIV) – leading inter alia to much more detailed specifications of the formal work of the CCIA. In relation to the UN, the Constitution accentuated: The Commission shall, with approval of the General Secretariat of the World Council of Churches, be responsible for facilitating and arranging such direct contact with the organs and specialised agencies of the United Nations as may be requested by other units of the World Council of Churches, and by bodies with special relations have been agreed under the provisions of Chapter II.74 These two changes point in one single direction that translates the trends of The Hague into formal rules: on the one hand, they stand for increasing integration of the CCIA into the context of the WCC – in terms of organization as well as in  terms of contents. On the other hand, the new Constitution reduces the significance of the CCIA as an identifiable entity inside the WCC. Subjects formerly associated with the CCIA were now put onto the general agenda of the WCC. Against the background of these formal changes, it becomes interesting to compare the two speeches on human rights held at the Assembly: the first of

110   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) these speeches (entitled ‘Human Rights in Retrospect – a Contemporary Appraisal’)75 was presented by Nolde, who focused almost exclusively on the UN as a proponent of human rights ideas and the respective debates inside the ecumenical movement – even though he highlighted the universal significance of human rights in a way that pointed beyond the frame of reference of UN resolutions, etc.: The accent must be on action – action to erase from the slate of domestic and international life the catalogue of crimes against the dignity of man. This will require that every nation and people redress the wrongs done and move affirmatively into the future. [. . .] I suggest that there is urgent need for a United Nations coordinating agent in the field of human rights – an office at the highest possible level, perhaps that of Under-­Secretary.76 The second speech, however, followed a totally different approach, and was given by the Ghanaian Robert K. A. Gardiner. Under the title ‘Christianity and Human Rights’, he referred only marginally to the United Nations (with two paragraphs on the UN Conference on Trade and Development/UNCTAD).77 The major focus of his paper was on the protagonists of the civil rights movement in the USA and their influence on human rights in general. Accordingly, Gardiner’s speech closed with the formulation of five goals for the future: What then, can we do, individually and collectively? (1) We must always remember that those who share with us the Christian faith have already turned the world upside down. (2) We must resist fear, temptation and communal pressures to conform to current stereotype ideas and patterns of behaviour. (3) We must take time off to question the attitudes of the societies in which we live. (4) We must agitate for reforms where laws sanction discrimination, or for legislation where needed to establish human rights. (5) Above all, we must watch our own individual and personal attitudes and behaviour.78 The comparison of the two approaches to human rights is of threefold interest for the present analyses. On the one hand, it shows that the traditional point of view of the CCIA was no longer uncontested and that the CCIA ceased to be the protagonist of these debates. On the other hand, the discussions of Uppsala were influenced by a new set of people closely affiliated to the new social movements. The new approach associated with the Church and Society Conference gained increasing significance inside the WCC. Finally, these debates introduced a new concept of human rights – frequently labelled as a second generation of human rights – focusing much more on the social dimension of human rights. In these respects, Uppsala makes it quite clear that the WCC became integrated into a totally new context and that the respective changes affected the work of the CCIA. Almost immediately after Uppsala, the CCIA developed a new position inside the WCC coinciding with the new standing of the WCC in international

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   111 affairs. This process included a new positioning towards the context of international relations, initially perceived as secular. 5.4.4  Positioning the WCC in international relations Interestingly, the CCIA documents in the WCC archive characterize these developments as a fundamental controversy and dispute between two generations of CCIA staff. In the aftermath of the Fourth Assembly, almost all the officers who had dominated the work of the CCIA for more than two decades retired or resigned (with the sole exception of Richard M. Fagley). Correspondingly, the first half of the 1970s saw the beginning of what might be called the second generation of the CCIA, with Leopoldo Niilus as the new director (1969–1981), Dwain C. Epps as Executive Secretary/Consultant (1971–1982/2002), and Ninan Koshy at first as Executive ­Secretary (1974–1980) and later on as the third Director of the CCIA (1980–1991). Immediately after Uppsala it was primarily Leopoldo Niilus who represented the new approach of the CCIA. And as a matter of fact he was in many ways the antipode to his predecessors: being the Study Secretary of the Argentinian Section of the River Plate Christian Studies Centre, he was associated with the global South (not with Anglo-­Amer­ican Protestantism), he was a lawyer by training (not a theologian or a missionary) and finally he stood – as the General Secretary of the Church and Society Movement in Latin America (ISLA) – for the new human rights agenda that triggered the discussion on the second generation of human rights (not the Western, liberal ideals of the 1940s and 1950s) inside the WCC.79 Inside the WCC, these differences were – at this time – accompanied by significant fractions, internally constructed along the lines of a crisis. In a letter to Blake, Fagley described an episode at the beginning of Niilus’ term as the new CCIA Director that starts from this alleged ‘crisis’ inside the CCIA, affecting its cooperation with the UN, and ends in a list of 12 eminent UN officials Niilus met during his first stay in New York, (including U Thant and two of the Under-­Secretary Generals): In mid-­December just before I returned to New York I heard that a senior W.C.C. staff member, in referring to the ‘crisis’ in the C.C.I.A., had mentioned as one item that I had not set up a proper U.N. program for Leopoldo [Niilus] until he ‘took a firm stand’. [. . .] There was I think some misunderstanding at the outset, but no rational person could critique the result. You do not make appointments with top U.N. officials long in advance especially during the U.N.G.A. [General Assembly of the UN] and Leopoldo’s 3 week stay made possible a very desirably preliminary discussion between us on the subjects of interest and the type of contact desired – courtesy call or substantive discussion.80 From the point of view of the older generation of CCIA officers, the main theme of this internal dispute was structured around the dichotomy of professionalism and dilettantism. In the above letter, Fagley underlines his own expertise in

112   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) cooperation with the UN and argues that there is a lack of sufficient knowledge inside the wider WCC context – as far as other staff members are concerned, as well as with regard to Niilus. In a similar direction the criticism points to the ‘old’ CCIA officers allotted to an open letter Blake sent to U Thant on 16 April 1970. In a communication to Ulrich Scheuner (from 1968 to 1969 short-­time Chairman of the CCIA), Fagley wrote: It [the open letter] looks to me like a publicity stunt, with the listing of a strange assortment of countries – the charges against at least some of which the W.C.C. is in no position to substantiate. Also the idea of asking the S.G. [Secretary General of the UN] to take some initiative, e.g. in the Commission on Human Rights, is amateurish and uninformed. It lowers the standards of representation long upheld by C.C.I.A.81 Ex negativo, these controversies illustrate the final reconfiguration of the WCC’s approach towards international affairs. At the end of an almost tragic development, the first generation of the CCIA was losing ground precisely at the time that its traditional field of expertise gained renewed significance. Under these circumstances, a second generation of activists entered the stage of the WCC, redefining its approach to the UN and international affairs. In the following year, the team around Niilus and Epps started to consolidate its own approach to human rights inside the WCC in delineation from the first generation of CCIA officers. Consequently, Niilus presented a paper entitled ‘Human Rights Reconsidered’ to the twenty-­sixth meeting of the Executive Committee of the CCIA (1971) that argued for a redefinition of the CCIA policies and programme vis-­à-vis human rights: Obviously enough, when we speak about human rights we speak about MAN. Therefore it becomes unavoidable that we constantly elaborate on our understanding of man. Not to do so results in superficiality, and, in most of the cases reveals a hidden ideology. [. . .] We must ask ourselves, what is our image of man, what are our value-­judgements vis-­à-vis man, what is our anthropology? Further, as Christians we must inquire, what is our understanding of God?82 The overall process reflected in this quotation was closely linked to the establishment of human rights as a common denominator of the activities inside the WCC and beyond, leading to a recovery of the position of the CCIA inside the WCC – now primarily as the protagonist of these general human rights ideas (rather than the UN and its diplomats). 5.4.5  Human rights as a common denominator The outcome of these developments can be illustrated by two events that took place during the first half of the 1970s – both indicating a general strengthening of human rights ideals.

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   113 The first of these events was linked to the twenty-­fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that saw the participation of the CCIA in a joint statement on human rights, signed by the Secretary General of the WCC and the President of the Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace. At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Society, Development, and Peace/Sodepax at Bossey, Blake and Maurice Roy decided to publish a joint statement. After an initial letter by Andrea di Montezomolo (at the time Vice-­Secretary of the Pontifical Commission) to Niilus,83 Epps formulated a statement that was finally adopted after less than three months by both sides without further fundamental modifications.84 This process documents a number of significant changes. First, it alludes to the hierarchical level the papers on human rights had reached in the 1970s. The statement on human rights is no longer restricted to specialists. Rather, it is signed with the authority of two high-­ranking officials. Moreover, it illustrates the high degree of consensus obtained in this field – enabling a very pragmatic cooperation between the WCC and the Holy See/the Vatican. Finally, it underlines the role the CCIA played inside the WCC as an integral part of its human rights-­related activities – without further independence. The second example refers to the request of the Central Committee of the WCC at Addis Ababa (20–21 January 1971) asking the CCIA to organize a consultation of WCC-­related human rights experts from around the world that finally developed into the well-­known St. Pölten conference (21–26 October 1974)85 – at the time seen as the central human rights-­related event inside the WCC. In an editorial for the related special issue of the Ecumenical Review, J. Victor Koilpillat summed up these developments in the following words: It [the St. Pölten-Consultation] was an important event as it was a landmark in the history of the WCC and was looked forward to anxiously and hopefully by the member churches. [. . . It] revealed the breadth and complexity of the subject and the differences in emphases and priority prevalent among Christians, as well as the inadequacy of the traditional approach of the churches to the subject. [. . .] On the matter of translating Christian responsibility into action there was more general consensus at St. Pölten and lines of effective ecumenical action were suggested. The other positive contribution of the consultation was to bring out interrelatedness of all kinds of human rights on the one hand, and on the other of human rights and economic–political structures, national and international; this should discourage the tendency, prevalent within and outside the churches, to absolutize one or other set or kind of human rights under the influence of their political and ideological environment.86 As far as this case analysis is concerned, St Pölten describes the end of the process that started in the early 1960s. During the early 1970s, the second generation of human rights became an integral aspect of the internal debates inside the WCC, and the CCIA specialized on their implementation. Using an anachronistic term,

114   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) one might describe these developments as human rights mainstreaming inside the WCC. Under these conditions, CCIA activities were no longer limited to the UN. The WCC as a whole had become an actor among the newly emerging international NGOs (from Amnesty International, founded in 1961 to Greenpeace, founded in 1971) interpreting the UN as a central – though not unquestioned – stage for their activities, and basing their approach on human rights ideals. On the basis of the above reflections, it is possible to present the following summary.

5.5  Summary – from diplomats of the churches to proponents of human rights The case analysis started from the observation that the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs/CCIA was established as a joint commission of the World Council of Churches/WCC and the International Missionary Council/IMC in order to link those institutions to – what central figures of the ecumenical movement perceived at the time as their ‘secular counterpart’ – the UN.87 People like William Temple, John F. Dulles or O. Frederick Nolde were highly concerned with the political situation immediately after World War II and framed their activities accordingly. They wanted to make the voice of the Church heard in world politics.88 The first years of the formal setting up of the CCIA were dominated by intensive interdependences between the WCC and the UN. O. Frederick Nolde probably was among the most influential NGO representatives in the early days of the UN and contributed to the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the official WCC documents on human rights (such as the 1948 Declaration on Religious Freedom). At the same time, he was instrumental in introducing an Anglo-­Amer­ican, liberal concept of human rights into the official statements of the WCC. And this is a success story indeed, at least as far as the formal CCIA and WCC resolutions of the early 1950s are concerned. During the late 1950s and the early 1960s, however, these discourses, as well as the structural approaches of CCIA officers, became the object of increasing debates inside the WCC. Embedded into a theological re-­orientation of the WCC (that is not the main focus of this analysis), it is first of all the establishment of a Secretariat on the theological basis of religious freedom (independent from the CCIA) that stands for early attempts to integrate human rights debates (so far exclusively associated with the UN experts of the CCIA) into the mainstream of the WCC, trying to reframe them in terms of theology. From the mid-­1960s onwards, these processes gained increasing momentum. At the time, the shifts were associated with the change from O. Frederick Nolde and Sir Kenneth Grubb to Leopoldo Niilus and Dwain Epps as the leading figures of the CCIA. Niilus was in many ways the antipode of his predecessors. He was from the global South (not from Anglo-­Amer­ican Protestantism), he was a lawyer by training (not a theologian or a missionary) and he stood for the new

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   115 human rights agenda that triggered the discussion on the second generation of human rights (not the Western, liberal ideals of the 1940s and 1950s). As far as this research project is concerned, these developments were embedded in fundamental shifts inside the self-­construction of the WCC. Under the influence of the new social movements (such as the civil rights movement, the protest against the Vietnam War etc.) and its theological counterparts (e.g. liberation theology, the theology of revolution etc.), most of the subjects formally associated with the CCIA became integral aspects of the self-­understanding of the WCC. Re-­constructing the early statements of the 1940s and 1950s, central organs of the WCC followed a new approach to international affairs. And this affected the work of the CCIA. In terms of its practical work in international affairs, it became a commission subordinated to the actions of the WCC as a whole. In terms of contents, its commissioners developed into the main protagonist of the establishment of human rights in the context of the WCC. In this sense, it is possible to talk about a very complex change in the construction of the relationship between theological reflections and legitimations as well as political programmes and human rights ideals inside the WCC that included a shift in the construction of what was perceived as religious and secular. The human rights discourse was no longer perceived as a discourse external to the WCC. It developed into an integral part of the self-­description of the WCC. The next case study will show that this type of change was in no way exclusive to the WCC. Pax Romana actually developed in a similar direction, following, however, a distinct path that reflects its specific role as an umbrella organization of Roman Catholic student organizations – with their self-­ understanding as elitist lay organizations inside Catholicism.

Notes   1 The following analyses will focus on the WCC which was, from 1937, in the ‘process of formation’, and was formally founded in 1948.   2 In 1961 the IMC was to merge with the WCC (Hogg, William R., Ecumenical Foundations – A History of the International Missionary Council and its Nineteenth-­ Century Background, Eugene 2002).   3 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1946–1947, Geneva 1947, pp. 8–10, here: p. 8.   4 Most of the major publications on the history of the WCC refer to the work of the CCIA, highlighting its links to the general mission of the WCC: Fitzgerald, Thomas E., The Ecumenical Movement – An Introductory History, Westport/London 2004. Frieling, Reinhard, Der Weg des ökumenischen Gedankens, Göttingen 1992; Koshy, Ninian, Churches in the World of Nations – International Politics and the Mission and Ministry of the Churches, Geneva 1994; Bent, Ans J. van der, Christian Responses on a World of Chrisis – A Brief History of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Geneva 1986; Epps, Dwain, ‘Der ökumenische Beitrag’, in Kirchenamt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (ed.), Bedrohung der Religionsfreiheit – Erfahrungen von Christen in verschiedenen Ländern, Hannover 2003, pp. 16–24 (EKD Texte).   5 Ney, Harold C., A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 2: 1948–1968, Geneva 1970; Briggs, John et al. (ed.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 3:

116   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) 1968–2000, Geneva 2004; Lossky, Nichola et al. (eds), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 2nd edn, Geneva 2002.   6 Berger, Peter L., ‘Ein Marktmodell zur Analyse ökumenischer Prozesse’, Internationales Jahrbuch für Religionssoziologie 1 (1965), pp. 235–249.   7 Pyle, Ralph E., Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment, Westport 1996.   8 Beyer, Peter, Religions in Global Society, London/New York 2006; Pries, Ludger, Transnationalisierung – Theorie und Empirie grenzüberschreitender Vergesellschaftung, Wiesbaden 2010, pp. 152–155.   9 Nurser, John, For all Peoples and all Nations – Christian Churches and Human Rights, Geneva 2005. 10 Peiponen, Matti, Ecumenical Action in World Politics – The Creation of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA), 1945–1949, Helsinki 2012. 11 Hudson, Darril, The Ecumenical Movement in World Affairs, London 1969; Hudson, Darril, The World Council of Churches in International Affairs, Leighton 1977. 12 Kunter, Katharina and Schjørring, Jens H. (ed.), Changing Relations between Churches in Europe and Africa – The Internationalization of Christianity and Politics in the 20th Century, Wiesbaden 2008. 13 Frey, Harold C. (ed.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 2: 1948–1968, Geneva 1970; Briggs, John et al., (eds), A History of the Ecumenical Movement. 14 N.A., Preamble of the Charter of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Geneva/London/New York 1946, p. 3. 15 Niebuhr, Reinhold, Christian Realism and Political Problems, New York City 1953. 16 Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America/Foreign Missions Conference of North America, Statement on Religious Liberty (21.III.1944/12.IV.1944 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01). 17 Korey, William, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – A Curious Grapevine’, New York/Basingtstoke 1998. 18 See the respective box at the WCC archives: WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01. 19 Visser ‘t Hooft, Willem A., Statement, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), pp. 4f. 20 Dulles, John F., Chairman’s Statement, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), p. 9. 21 Most interestingly, the question of human rights – later to become one of the most significant aspects of the work of the CCIA – is rarely mentioned in the transcripts of the Cambridge Conference. 22 Nolde, O. Frederick, Relation of the Churches to the UN, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), p. 12. 23 Grubb, Kenneth G., Remark, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), p.  18. A stance Grubb kept on taking throughout his time with the CCIA. 24 N.A., Remark, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), p. 19. 25 Hudson, Cyril E., Remark, 5.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), p. 21. 26 See his autobiography, Grubb, Sir Kenneth, Crypts of Power – An Autobiography, London/Sydney/Auckland/Toronto 1971. 27 Charter of the CCIA, adopted by the Cambridge Conference 1946, in Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1946–1947, Geneva 1947, pp. 8–10, here: pp. 9f. 28 Nolde, O. Frederick, Letter to Malik, 6.V.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA Box 428 3 23). An internal compilation of the responses can be found in the same box. 29 Nolde, O. Frederick, Procedures for Consultation with the UN Commission on Human Rights at its third session as suggested by replies from Church Leaders, 30.IV.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 23), p. 3.

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   117 30 At the first General Assembly there was another commission (Commission III, entitled ‘The Church and the Disorder of Society’ under the leadership of Reinhold Niebuhr, J.H. Oldham, and Nils Ehrenström) that dealt with similar topics from the point of view of the WCC Study Department. In 1948, however, the archive materials suggest that there was no fundamental competition between those two commissions. 31 See box: WCC 428 CCIA, Box 31 004. 32 N.A., Minutes of Section IV ‘The Church and the International Disorder’ 25.–31. VIII.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 31 004), pp. 58f (capitals in original). 33 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1947–1949, Geneva 1949, pp. 11–15, here: pp. 13f. 34 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1947–1949, Geneva 1949, pp. 11–15, here: pp. 13f. 35 From mid-­1947 onwards, O. Frederick Nolde worked on his paper, entitled ‘Freedom of Religion and Related Human Rights’ (in the first draft: ‘Human Rights and Religious Liberty’ – the shift of emphasis indicated by the sequence of the wording already referring to shifts inside the whole CCIA debate from human rights to religious freedom). 36 CCIA, Preliminary Report on Human Rights General Assembly – third session Paris, XI 1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 23), p. 2. 37 CCIA, Preliminary Report on Human Rights General Assembly – third session Paris, XI 1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 23), p. 2. 38 Visser ‘t Hooft, William, Letter to Nolde, 17.XI.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 25). Twenty years later, Charles Malik came to a similar appraisal: Malik, Charles H., ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, in Nolde, O. Frederick, Free and Equal – Human Rights in Ecumenical Perspective, Geneva 1968, pp.  7–13, here: p. 11. 39 Grubb, Kenneth, Letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, 29.IX.1952 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 11 01 1). 40 Micheli, Dominique, UN Study on Discrimination in Religious Rights, 9.II.1956 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 05). 41 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Study on Discrimination in Religious Rights and Practices, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 05), p. 8. 42 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, An informal summary of comments in response to an inquiry by the officers of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, 17.IX.1959 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 05), p. 4. 43 N.A., International Ethos: A Christian Approach – Some Background Documentation, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 20). Huber, Max, ‘An International Ethos’, The Ecumenical Review 8 (1956), pp. 402–405. 44 N.A., International Ethos: A Christian Approach – Some Background Documentation, N.D., p. 2 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 20). 45 World Council of Churches (ed.), The Evanston Report – The Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches 1954, London 1955, p. 141. 46 See WCC 428 CCIA, Box 20. 47 See N.A., Draft Provisional Plan of Study, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 20). 48 These developments do invite – of course – comparisons: (a) Robert N. Bellah’s concept of a civil religion in the USA (as first laid down in his article, Bellah, Robert N., ‘Civil Religion in America’, Dædalus 96 (1967), pp.  1–21), as well as (b) with Hans Küng’s Foundation for a Global Ethic/Stiftung Weltethos with it’s first declaration signed at the 1993 Parliament of the World’s Religions. 49 In 1967 the Executive Committee of the WCC requested that the CCIA should take over the work of Carrillo – after the disestablishment of the Secretariat on Religious Liberty (inside the Division of Studies). 50 Nolde, O. Frederick, Letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, 11.III.1958 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01).

118   Commission of the Churches on IF (CCIA) 51 Visser ‘t Hooft, Willem A., Letter to Grubb and Nolde, 26.III.1958 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01). 52 This was accompanied by a first consultation with Roman Catholic theologians taking place in Bossey (from 9 to 12 May 1961) with Nolde representing the CCIA. 53 Micheli, A. Dominique, Study of Religious Liberty – Draft Statement on Strategy, 29.II.1960 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01). 54 See WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01. 55 Carrillo de Albornoz, Angel F., First rough draft of a Study on the Basis and Nature of Religious Liberty and of an ecumenical Statement thereof, 5.III.1959 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01), pp. 6f. 56 See WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01. 57 World Council of Churches, The New Delhi Report – The third Assembly of the World Council of Churches 1961, London 1962, p. 280. 58 Grubb, Kenneth, Letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, 19.III.1959 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 08 01 05). 59 Booth, Alan R., Memo on Preparation for New Delhi, 1.XI.1960 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 08 01 05), p. 3. 60 Bonino, José Míguez, A Study of Some Recent Roman Catholic and Protestant Thought on the Relation of Scripture and Tradition, New York 1960 (Diss. Union Theological Seminary). Gutiérrez, Gustavo, Teología de la liberación – Perspectivas, Lima 1971. 61 At the time this process was widely discussed in ecumenical circles. For a more recent appraisal see one of the last articles of one of the protagonists of the developments, the late Lukas Vischer, ‘Committed to the transformation of the the world – Where are we 40 years after the World Conference on Church and Society in Geneva (1966)’, Ecumenical Review 59 (2007), pp. 27–47. 62 Visser ‘t Hooft, Willem A., ‘World Conference on Church and Society’, Ecumenical Review 18 (1966), pp. 417–425, here: pp. 421f. 63 Booth, Alan, Letter to Fagley, 12.III.1966 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 21). 64 Fagley, Richerd M., Letter to Micheli, 23.IX.1965 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 21). 65 In order to learn more about the perspective of the CCIA, see inter alia: WCC 428 CCIA, Box P 324; WCC 428 CCIA, Box P 21. 66 N.A., Memorandum C.C.I.A. Consultation 1967 – Dr Blake’s Advisory Committee, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 08 01). N.A., Memorandum C.C.I.A. Consultation 1967 – Meeting of Dr Blake with a Group of Theologians, 15.VII.1966 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 08 01). 67 World Council of Churches, Report of the Consultation on the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, The Hague, 12–17 April 1967, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 17), p. 1. 68 Ibid., p. 15. 69 Ibid., p. 24. 70 Blake, Eugene Carson, ‘Introduction’ [to a special Issue on 20 Years CCIA] Ecumenical Review 19 (1967), pp. 117–120, here: p. 119 (italics in original). 71 Goodall, Norman (ed.), The Uppsala Report 1968 – Official Report of the Fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches Uppsala July 4–20, 1968, Geneva 1968. 72 Fagley, Richard M., Letter to Nolde, 3.V.1967 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 08 01 07). 73 Constitution of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, adopted by the Fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches Uppsala, Sweden 4–19 July 1968, Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Report 1968–1969, Geneva 1969, pp. 57–66, here: p. 57. 74 Ibid., pp. 57–66, here: p. 65. 75 Nolde, O. Frederick published a revised version in his book The Churches and the Nations, Philadelphia 1970, pp.  149–159. The Uppsala Report provides the reader with a short summary of the discussions (Goodall, Norman, The Uppsala Report

Commission of the Churches on IA (CCIA)   119 1968, pp. 144–145). The manuscript of the speech can be found in: WCC 428 CCIA, Box 34 001. 76 Nolde, O. Frederick, The Churches and the Nations, pp. 149–159, here p. 158 (identical with the manuscript: WCC 428 CCIA, Box 34 001, pp. 8f.). 77 Gardiner, Robert R.K.A., ‘Christianity and Human Rights’, The Ecumenical Review 20 (1968), pp. 404–409. The manuscript of the speech can also be found in WCC 428 CCIA, Box 34 001. 78 Gardiner, Robert R. K. A., ‘Christianity and Human Rights’, p. 409. 79 Epps, Dwain, ‘The Last Seven Years’, in N.A., Report of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1970–1973, Geneva/New York 1973, pp.  34–37, here: p. 34. 80 Fagley, Richard M., Letter to Blake, 16.I.1970 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 11 01 5). 81 Fagley, Richard M., Letter to Scheuner, 20.IV.1970 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 11 01 5). 82 Ibid., p. 2 (capitals in original). 83 Montezomolo, Andrea di, Letter to Niilus, 10.IX.1973 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 14). 84 Epps, Dwain C., Letter to Montezomolo, 22.XI.1973 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 14). 85 See WCC 428 CCIA, Box P 442. 86 Koilpillat, J. Victor, ‘Editorial’, Ecumenical Review 27 (1975), pp. 93–96, here: p. 93. 87 serve the Churches, Councils and Conferences which are members of the World Council of Churches, and the International Missionary Council as a source of stimulus and knowledge in their approach to international problems, as a medium of common counsel and action, and as their organ in formulation the Christian mind on world issues and in bringing that mind effectively to bear upon such matters. (Charter of the CCIA, adopted by the Cambridge Conference 1946, in Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1946–1947, Geneva 1947, pp. 8–10, here: p. 8) 88 Bent, Ans J. van der, Christian Response in a World of Crisis: A Brief History of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Geneva 1986; Nurser, John, For all Peoples and all Nations: Christian Churches and Human Rights, Geneva 2005; Koshy, Ninian, Churches in the World of Nations: International Politics and the Mission and the Ministry of the Churches, Geneva 1994.

6 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)

As has already been indicated in Chapter 3, Pax Romana has been chosen as the second case of the present analyses in order to add a number of new dimensions to the analysis of the first three decades of RNGO activities in the context of the UN. As in the case of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs/CCIA, Pax Romana was among the first religiously affiliated organizations to formally cooperate with the UN. From the mid-­1940s onwards, it developed into one of the most active RNGOs, thus providing detailed insights into this crucial period of religiously affiliated activities in international relations. In addition to this, Pax Romana also brings a number of new aspects to the present analysis. Being an umbrella organization of national confederations of Roman Catholic students, Pax Romana adds not only a Catholic but also a primarily European, and youth- and education-­related dimension to the following considerations. With regard to this most general characterization, Pax Romana’s earliest history can be traced back to a number of conferences among Catholic students that took place around the turn of the twentieth century.1 Three years after the end of World War I, representatives of Catholic student organizations from predominantly South and East European countries revived this earlier tradition. They organized a gathering in Fribourg, Switzerland, that finally established a loosely structured cooperation of national student associations centred around an ‘International Cooperation Office’ to foster the idea of Roman peace (i.e. Pax Romana): A l’unanimité, les délégués des associations catholiques d’étudiants, réunis à Fribourg, le 20 juillet 1921, décident la fondation d’un ‘Bureau international catholique d’information et de liaison’, qui adopte pour devise les mots PAX ROMANA et dont la direction sera assurée par la réunion périodique du Conseil des délégués. Ces associations s’engagent à soutenir le bureau moralement et matériellement.2 In the years after the 1921 conference in Fribourg, the cooperation among those national associations rapidly gained momentum. Two years after the initial post-­ war meeting, Cardinal Gasparri (at the time a member of the diplomatic corps of

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   121 the Holy See and later to become the Prefect of the Apostolica Signatura) officially affirmed the foundation of Pax Romana in the name of Pope Pius XI. In 1925 the initial work around the ‘International Cooperation Office’ developed into a formal confederation, with an organizational structure (such as a general secretariat, a journal, a membership-­fee, and a formal accreditation procedure) that presented itself as an institution to propagate Roman Catholic ideas in the academic spectrum of present-­day society: Pax Romana s’efforce de réaliser le développement complet de l’idée catholique dans les milieux d’étudiants, et cela dans tous les domaines de la vie universitaire, intellectuelle et sociale, en se reportant aux meilleurs traditions du passé chrétien et en cherchant à répondre aux exigences des temps présents.3 Unfortunately, the next steps in the history of Pax Romana are only poorly documented.4 Of course, Pax Romana is part of most analyses on the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and the aggiornamento processes.5 In addition, there is, however, only a relatively small number of publications that analyse the history of Pax Romana in its own right. Authors such as Urs Altermatt, Ramon Sugranyes de Franch, and Guillaume de Weck have presented historical studies that approach the early history of Pax Romana primarily from the point of view of the respective protagonists.6 François Blin has provided invaluable information on the general history of the International Catholic Organizations (ICO) that formed a significant frame of reference for the UN-­related activities of Pax Romana.7 An overall history of Pax Romana that reconstructs its socio-­cultural developments from the late nineteenth century up until today remains, however, still to be written. Most of the existing analyses link the development of Pax Romana primarily to the changes associated with the Second Vatican Council. In doing so, they follow two different trains of thought that can be constructed along the lines of a more liberal and more traditional reading of those events.8 The more liberal literature tends to interpret the developments of the 1960s and 1970s as a necessary trend to open the Church towards a changing society, thus highlighting the long traditions of respective changes. The more traditional analyses interpret the history of Pax Romana in line with an abrupt shift in the direction of Roman Catholic theology and practice that affected the core of the Catholic Church.9 As will be spelled out in more detail in the next sections, it is also possible to identify a third strand of these debates: Almost immediately after the end of Vatican II, a number of Catholic lay persons interpreted the developments of the 1960s and 1970s as a shift of the power relations between existing international lay activities and the international policy of the Vatican or the Holy See. This less prominent strand of research literature provides a point of view for the analysis of Pax Romana that focuses upon concrete power relations inside the Roman Catholic Church rather than general theological debate. In this sense, it adds a dimension to the present reflections that has direct repercussions on the

122   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) idea of looking into the black box of religiously affiliated organizations that stands at the centre of the book at hand.10 Along those lines, the following chapter will present the history of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities with regard to three distinct periods: 1 2 3

The first years of Pax Romana’s activities in the UN context (from 1945 to 1950) that were dominated by its establishment as a worldwide lay organization and a vanguard for peace. The period from 1951 to 1965 that was characterized by an increasing need to represent Pax Romana in a multipolar context, focusing on a Roman Catholic approach to human rights. A final period of UN-­related activities (up to 1977) that saw Pax Romana’s increasing integration into the wider NGO community, associated with a re-­ definition of its own position.

Taken together, these three periods provide the backbone for a more detailed analysis of the establishment of Pax Romana inside the context of the UN that starts with the foundation of Pax Romana as a worldwide lay organization that was presented as a vanguard for peace.

6.1  A worldwide lay organization – vanguard for peace (1946–1950) In order to put the above research agenda into practice, it is necessary to highlight one significant formal difference between Pax Romana and the CCIA that so far has not been mentioned. Due to the relatively weak organizational structure of Pax Romana, the overall development of its UN-­related activities was very much shaped by a number of committed individuals (rather than a stable commission – as in the case of the CCIA). This requires a different style of presentation that puts additional emphasis on individual actors, while at the same time trying to grasp the overall developments. Accordingly, it makes sense to highlight those individuals that dominated the different phases of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities in order to make the presentation of the research results easier to follow. The first phase was dominated by the following individuals:11 • • •

Ramon Sugranyes de Franch: a Spanish-­born professor of Fribourg University, from 1946 to 1958 serving as the Secretary General of Pax Romana – IMCS, and later to become the director of the Institut International Jacques Maritain, Marc Dubois: after World War II the President Secretary of the Groupe Français d’Etudes Internationales and one of the earliest representatives of Pax Romana before the UN, and James E. Dougherty: during the early phase the President of the National Federation of Catholic College Students, as well as the Vice-­President of Pax Romana-­IMCS and later to become a scholar of international relations.

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   123 Having introduced these individuals, it is interesting to see that the formal establishment of Pax Romana coincides with the foundation of early international organizations such as the International Labour Office of the League of Nations (established in 1919, predecessor of the International Labour Organization/ILO) or the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (established in 1922, predecessor of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization/ UNESCO). And this is more than a mere coincidence. The Fribourg archives include a number of references to contacts with those early modern international organizations that document the initial attempts of the Cooperation and Information Office (and later on Pax Romana’s General Secretariat) to cooperate in the sphere of international relations.12 These early initiatives gained further momentum during the late 1930s and mid-­1940s. In this period (particularly after the foundation of the UN) the contacts between Pax Romana and the widening spectrum of international organizations augmented significantly, thus indicating a general tendency towards international cooperation inside Pax Romana. Two major events inside this time period stand paradigmatically for the respective developments – (1) the 1939 Congress of Pax Romana that took place in Washington, DC and New York City and (2) the Twentieth Congress of Pax Romana from 31 August to 5 September 1946 (taking place in Fribourg, Switzerland). In comparison with the CCIA these two events underline the role of the UN as a significant catalyst. They form the basis for the particular way in which Pax Romana was able to draw from resources that were explicitly linked to Roman Catholic theology in order to transform the momentum of UN activities into a very specific internal construction of the human rights discourse that puts particular emphasis on their role as Catholic NGOs and predates similar attempts inside the Roman Catholic hierarchies. 6.1.1  Pontifical message of peace to the world In order to reconstruct the respective processes, one first has to look at the 1939 World Congress of Pax Romana in Washington, DC and New York City. In the history of Pax Romana, this Congress is frequently described as being of three-­ fold significance. First, it is associated with an expansion of Pax Romana, in as far as this congress was Pax Romana’s first World Congress outside the European continent. Second, the year of 1939 was dominated by the beginning of World War II and thus the starting-­point for a period of coerced re-­orientation that formed the basis for Pax Romana’s re-­establishment after 1945.13 Finally, the congress formed the climax of Pax Romana’s allegiance to the idea of an ‘Azione Cattolica’/’Catholic Action’.14 Almost all of the 11 papers presented at the Congress made explicit reference to Catholic Action in the title, thus illustrating to what extent the organizers perceived the ideal of decisively Catholic activity in the world as a general motivation for their own activities.15 In comparison, the 1946 Congress witnessed two major shifts. On the one hand, Pax Romana went through a process every successful student organization

124   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) has to go through: the protagonists of the first generation, after graduating from university, proceeded into professional life and a second generation of students – with their unique interests – entered Pax Romana and thus re-­shaped its character. Correspondingly, the Fribourg Congress saw the differentiation of Pax Romana in two distinct, even though closely related, organizations frequently described as ‘branches’: 1 2

the International Movement of Catholic Students/IMCS that continued the student-­related activities of Pax Romana, and the International Catholic Movement of Intellectual and Cultural Affairs/ ICMICA, founded to bring together the alumni of the IMCS.16

On the other hand, the overwhelming dominance of ‘Catholic Action’ was replaced by a re-­emphasis on the peace ideal. Immediately after World War II, the protagonists inside Pax Romana started to add a distinct reference to the so-­ called ‘Peace Messages’ of Pius XII (1939ff ) as a constitutive context for their activities.17 Along those lines, Joseph Gremaud (at the time the Secretary General of Pax Romana) presented a paper in the opening section of the Congress – entitled: ‘Les 25 ans de Pax Romana’ – that inscribes this very emphasis on peace into the history of Pax Romana: Pax Romana a l’ambition d’être au service de la paix, mais par des moyens beaucoup plus humbles, par conséquent par des moyens plus chrétiens. Je suis persuadé que la paix durable est non pas un but immédiat, mais le résultat d’un long travail. Ce travail ainsi que le faisait déjà remarquer Mgr. Seipel au Congrès de Bologne en 1925, est l’œuvre de tous les jours réalisée au sein des fédérations elles-­mêmes. Pax Romana veut être dès lors un lien entre les fédérations.18 And this is precisely the point where Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities came in. Following the remarks on the peace ideal, Gremaud outlined what he perceived as one of the main fields of Pax Romana’s activities – international congresses, organized travel, study workshops, an information centre on the great events of international life, the work of the Secretariats, and activities on the international level. In short, Gremaud describes Pax Romana as a worldwide Catholic vanguard representing the peace message of ‘the Church’ on the margins of ‘the world’: Pax Romana sur le plan international, i.e. la présence de la pensée catholique dans les milieux neutres et dans les organisations non catholiques. C’est à nous qu’il appartient de faire rayonner les admirables pensées des messages émouvants de Noël de SS Pie XII que tous, sans doute, vous avez lus, et qui constituent les bases de l’organisation de la paix. Combien ne les connaissent pas? Et combien intentionnellement ne veulent pas les connaître! Mais, ne sommes nous pas responsables? Avons nous fait tout ce qui était en notre

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   125 pouvoir pour diffuser cette pensée? Pax Romana avec toute la prudence nécessaire et après avoir pris l’avis des autorités ecclésiastiques, a précisément tenté de réaliser beaucoup dans ce domaine, dans les milieux qui ne sont pas catholiques.19 Unfortunately, the archives include no further documents on the discussions of this paper. There are, however, direct links between this perception of Pax Romana’s mission and the complex string of events that finally led the protagonists at Pax Romana’s General Secretariat to perceive the UN as a field of action. 6.1.2  The UN as a field of action The events that formed the basis of Pax Romana’s first contacts with the UN developed more or less simultaneously at different places around the world. Actually, the first encounters with the UN were dominated by four figures that acted from distinct motives and with only limited knowledge of each other – first the Secretaries General in Fribourg, Ramon Sugranyes de Franch (ICMICA), and Joseph Schnewly (IMCS), and second, two members of Pax Romana in the USA and France: James E. Dougherty (at the time Vice-­President of Pax Romana-­IMCS), Marc Dubois (at the time President Secretary of the Groupe Français d’Etudes Internationales). These four individuals contributed in different ways to the establishment of Pax Romana in the UN context. On the one hand, the Secretaries General of the two branches decided on 18 and 19 October 1947 – without any controversial discussion – that Pax Romana should apply for ‘Consultative Status B’ with the ECOSOC of the UN.20 In other words, without further questioning, they followed Grenaud’s conviction that an organization such as Pax Romana needs to play an active role in what he called ‘international life’ and they took the necessary steps to translate this into formal action. On the other hand (and more or less independent from the strategic decisions of the General-­Secretariats), Dougherty – primarily pursuing his professional education – decided to commit himself to the UN and felt the urge to link these activities to the work in Fribourg. Taken together, these two trends underline once again the potential of the UN to immediately attract attention and to trigger cooperation after the end of World War II. In the case of Pax Romana, they triggered a dynamic process that finally led to a perception of the UN as a field of action in its own right. The first letter between Dougherty and Schneuwly shows how glad the Secretary General was about this coincidence on both sides of the Atlantic and how convinced he was that Pax Romana had to be active in the context of the UN: I am glad you were able to attend personally some of the sessions at Lake Success. We [at the General Secretariat in Fribourg] are looking forward to receiving the report of your Observer and also your own comments on the meeting. In this connection you will be interested to know that, at the

126   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) meeting of the ‘Committee of Pax Romana’ held in Fribourg on October 18 and 19, the two branches of Pax Romana decided to apply for ‘Consultative Status B’ with the Economic and Social Council of the UNO.21 These early initiatives almost immediately led towards an ongoing cooperation between Pax Romana and UNESCO (initially perceived as the genuine partner of Pax Romana in the field of education) as well as – later on – between Pax Romana and the UN’s ECOSOC. At the same time, they formed the startingpoint for those processes that finally triggered the formal establishment of Pax Romana in this context. The respective processes can be subdivided into three major milestones that underline the close links between (1) Pax Romana’s activities in the context of the UN, (2) the self-­understanding of Pax Romana as a Catholic NGO, (3) and the support of human rights inside Pax Romana. Taken together these three milestones set the tone for the construction of the human rights discourse inside Pax Romana. The following three sections will reconstruct these developments in a systematic way. 6.1.3  First milestone: hesitance to approach human rights In line with the anti-­modernist stance that dominated the early position of the Roman Catholic Church towards human rights, Pax Romana’s documents prior to 1947 contain almost no references to human rights at all. The first more detailed references to this subject-­matter are to be found in a memorandum written by the aforementioned Marc Dubois, who started to attend the second session of the UN’s Human Rights Commission in December 1947 and shows his initial reluctance to deal with human rights. Sans aucun doute les articles étudiés ci-­dessus sont loin d’épuiser les sujets intéressant les Catholiques dans le domaine des droits de l’homme. Dans le temps si bref qui m’a été donné pour me familiariser avec le sujet, il ne m’était matériellement pas possible de faire plus. [. . .] Au point de vue catholique, j’ai eu à ma disposition l’excellente documentation de Miss Schaefer. Je tiens à rendre hommage aussi bien à son travail qu’à l’effort des Ligues féminines catholiques aux Etats Unis. La déclaration des droits de l’homme élaborée par la ‘National Catholic Welfare Conference’ m’a été également d’une aide précieuse. – Tout cela n’empêche nullement de constater que la défense des intérêts catholiques à la deuxième session de la Commission des Droits de l’Homme à Genève a été une pure improvisation.22 This initial assessment contains three messages. First, Dubois makes it clear that he himself had no extended interest in, or knowledge about, human rights debates prior to his contacts with the UN. To put this more generally: for a Catholic with a European background, these discourses seemed to be rather unfamiliar. Second, the author underlines the leading role of Amer­ican Catholics in general and Catherine Schaefer in particular (at the time a director of the

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   127 ‘Office of UN Affairs of the National Catholic Welfare Conference’ and keeping this position up to 1972 – covering the whole lifetime of this office). In other words, the quotation highlights the leading role US Catholicism played in the early construction of the human rights discourse inside the Roman Catholic Church. In addition, the previous quotation documents a third aspect that – at first sight – might appear to be less important. In the above quotation, Dubois underlines the relevance of those organizations that described themselves as ‘international catholic lay organizations’, and had started to organize a yearly ‘Conférence des Présidents’ bringing together the leaders of the so-­called ‘International Catholic Organizations/ICO’.23 In other words, Dubois very clearly describes the particular segment of Roman Catholicism that almost immediately approached the UN as a field of action and formed an important frame of reference for Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities. In the context of the UN, this situation changed almost immediately. Just about a few weeks after this initial reference to human rights in the context of the UN, the same author presented the same audience with a much more optimistic analysis of the situation that shows how rapidly Pax Romana was immersed in the UN context. Dealing with the most recent draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and drawing heavily upon a comparison with an edition of the Declaration requested by the Commission and written by René Cassin, Dubois communicated the following overall comment to Fribourg: Cependant, avant de considérer l’état d’esprit regrettable qui caractérise certaines interventions, nous tenons à souligner la concordance qui s’établit entre l’enseignement de l’Eglise et le texte de portée très générale que voici: ‘L’observation des Droits de l’Homme ne peut être complètement assurée à moins d’établir des conditions de progrès social et de meilleurs niveaux de vie.’ [. . .] L’Eglise enseignante ne manquera pas de conseiller, de régler et d’ordonner leurs démarches, quand l’Action Catholique les invite à porter avec elle le souci du monde et à ocuvrer [sic] à son salut par l’irradiation de la Vérité et le zèle surnaturel dans l’humilité. La conception que les instances internationales se feront des Droits de l’homme, et plus profondément de l’homme lui-­même, peut tenir sa place dans l’orientation des esprits vers un monde dont la Chrétienté est le meilleur garant de prospérité, d’harmonie et de bonheur. 24 This quotation stands for the immediate attempt to integrate the ideas associated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into those religious traditions Pax Romana saw itself associated with.25 In doing so, it adds two further aspects to the present analyses. First it illustrates the very practical interest in the activities of the UN and their potential to ‘absorb’ people drawn to this type of activity. Second, it underlines to what extent organizations such as Pax Romana were able to embed their respective activities into a very distinct Franco-­Amer­ican strand of Catholic theology. In the words of the philosopher Etienne Gilson, who published the first

128   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) human rights-­related article in the newly established journal of Pax Romana, this very process reads: This is all the more necessary in that, if we evaded the task, we should soon find ourselves confronted with this most paradoxical of situations: The temporal world working to realize a Christian idea before the Christians. What is U.N.E.S.C.O. but the most noble effort to re-­establish among men that intellectual cooperation which the Middle Ages knew of old through the Church and which the unbridled nationalism of modern States has since dislocated, if not destroyed?26 Taken together, these developments formed the basis of the second major milestone in the process of the establishment of Pax Romana in the UN context – Pax Romana’s immediate self-­construction as a Catholic NGO that was central to its approach to the UN as well as to human rights. 6.1.4  Second milestone: self-­construction as a Catholic NGO Before reaching this second milestone, Pax Romana had to overcome a number of problems. First of all, the earliest formal contacts of Pax Romana with the UN were far from harmonious. Actually, the people at Fribourg had to wait almost one year for formal accreditation. After the first application, Pax Romana’s General Secretariat and James E. Dougherty (who had become a de facto representative of Pax Romana) had to be in constant contact over the issue, because the NGO Committee of ECOSOC questioned (1) the role of Pax Romana’s affiliated associations in Spain, and (2) the role of affiliated federations in exile (Catholic Ukrainian Students, Lithuanian Catholic Students, and the Croatian and Slovenian Federation).27 Up to May 1948, Joseph Schneuwly (General Secretary IMCS) kept complaining about the lengthy process Pax Romana had to go through – despite what he perceived as general approval from the point of view of UN civil servants: Mr. White read the memorandum [written by Pax Romana to counter critique of its status] and said that in his opinion it seemed to cover all objections that could be made; he was particularly impressed with the importance of the clause in our statutes which expressively excludes all political action on the part of our member federations. In general, he was most cordial and helpful and anxious to receive from us written statements of our point of view on relations between ECOSOC and the NGOs and on concrete details of collaboration.28 It was not until July that Schneuwly was finally able to inform Dougherty about the formal accreditation29 to ECOSOC, which set the stage for more concrete cooperation with the UN, based upon an organizational setting that can be visualized in Figure 6.1:

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   129 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) UN

Gen. Sec.

Holy See

Cath. NGOs

Figure 6.1  Organizational set-up of ICMICA/ICMS in the 1940s.

This figure underlines that Pax Romana’s General Secretariat started almost immediately after the formal accreditation to send particularly interested individuals as representatives to Geneva and New York City (as well as Paris) in order to act on behalf of Pax Romana before the UN (as well as UNESCO). In addition, it draws attention to two dimensions of the wider context the activities of Pax Romana were embedded in: (1) The activities of Pax Romana’s representatives had to be approved by the respective authorities of the Holy See, and (2) they were accompanied by parallel activities of other NGOs that perceived themselves as decisively Catholic. And all of this formed the basis for Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities in the following two decades. All these developments set the stage for the next milestone of Pax Romana’s initial cooperation with the UN. They triggered a general change in the self-­ perception of Pax Romana that defined their concrete activities with regard to the UN. From 1948 onwards, the officials inside Pax Romana started to perceive themselves as representatives of one Catholic NGO among others inside the UN context. And once again, it is one of the reports of Marc Dubois that provides interesting insights into the actual processes. In a paper on their consultative status with the UN, Dubois analysed the general role of the Catholic NGOs and came to the conclusion that, so far, there were but three Catholic organizations with consultative status: the Fédération internationale des syndicats chrétiens (Catégorie A), the Union internationale

130   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) des Ligues féminines catholiques (Category B), and the Union Catholique internationale du Service Social (Category B).30 Following this observation, Dubois describes the low percentage of Catholic presence among the NGOs as a deficit of Catholic activities on the international level: Au total sur 65 ONG dotées du statut consultatif = 1 sur 8 en (A), 2 sur 54 en (B), 0 sur 3 en (C) soit 3 ONG catholiques sur 65 0 4,61%. La Conférence jugera s’il est, en conséquence, opportune de suggérer à d’autres organisations internationales catholiques, représentant tel ou tel ordre d’activité considéré dans cette statistique, de s’inquiéter d’une demande d’admission au statut consultatif.31 And this evaluation was in accord with more general assessments inside Pax Romana. A document written by Rudolph Salat (up to 1946 a member of the Pax Romana General Secretariat and later to become the Director of the UNESCO Department of Cultural Activities) interpreted the Catholic presence inside the UN context along similar lines – interestingly alluding to Protestant organizations as an example of efficient representation: Ce sont les pasteurs protestants qui ont parlé le plus clairement de Dieu. Cela a été pour moi un moment vraiment émouvant d’entendre la voix du pasteur Eastman [of the CCIA] qui, dans la discussion générale sur les droits de l’homme, a marqué nettement leur dépendance de Dieu, dans une atmosphère de grand respect. [. . .] Le facteur le plus positif a été l’excellente collaboration qui a existé entre tous les délégués catholiques avant et durant la Conférence. Les documents élaborés par R.P. Dubois et les séances préparatoires ont certainement rendu de très grands services. Aussi, les catholiques ont fait l’impression d’un groupe bien préparé.32 Both quotations make it clear to what extent Pax Romana officials had started to act as representatives of a decisively Catholic NGO. In other words, while underlining their self-­understanding as a Catholic organization, they understood themselves as members of NGOs that were committed to cooperating with the UN in order to implement their ideas in this context. As far as the present analyses are concerned, it is also interesting to see that this was not a unidirectional process. For the protagonists inside Pax Romana, being a Catholic NGO was immediately linked to the idea of participating in those debates of the UN they perceived to be significant. And this certainly included the debates on human rights to a degree that was more than just lip service. Right into the early 1950s, the people at the General Secretariat went to some degree of trouble to introduce human rights ideas into what can be called the ‘rank and file’ of Pax Romana. This actually formed the third major milestone of the initial phase of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities.

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   131 6.1.5  Third milestone: practical introduction of human rights Pax Romana’s human rights activities started almost immediately after the above discussion on its particular role as a Catholic NGO. From 13 to 16 August 1948, Pax Romana organized a first major discussion on human rights at the Second Assembly of the IMCS taking place at St Edmund’s College, Ware (Great Britain). In the frame of this meeting, Dubois presented a report on his recent human rights activities and convinced the Assembly, without any further discussion, to put further emphasis on this type of activity: Le texte de ce mémoire sera largement diffusé et envoyé à tous nos membres et amis. D’autre part, l’Assemblée estime que la question des Droits de l’Homme est trop importante pour nous borner à travailler sur un texte officiel, auquel pour des raisons d’opportunité nous voulons nous borner à proposer les modifications indispensables. C’est pourquoi elle a entrepris une étude plus approfondie de la question et elle a jeté les bases pour une Déclaration des droits de l’homme entièrement inspirée des principes chrétiens.33 Almost immediately after this meeting, Sugranyes de Franch followed up upon this new policy and formulated a number of plans in the field of human rights, which he summarized in a private letter to Vittorino Veronese (at the time a lawyer in Italy and President of Italian Catholic Action and about to become the future Secretary General of UNESCO): En ce qui concerne les Droits de l’Homme, j’ai rédigé un Mémoire suivant les instructions reçues de l’Assemblée, que j’ai fait parvenir, voici déjà plusieurs jours au Président du Conseil économique et social. Sur le plan précis de la liberté religieuse, j’ai consulté notre Assistant ecclésiastique et l’éminent théologien qu’est l’Abbé Journet. D’accord avec eux, j’ai rédigé une formule qui me semble satisfaisante. J’ai reçu par la suite une note de Cassano me disant que quelqu’un qu’il a consulté en haut lieu a suggéré une formule qui correspond tout à fait avec celle de mon Mémoire: dire que pour nous catholiques, la liberté de conscience s’entend exclusivement à l’égard de l’Etat mais non pas à l’égard de Dieu et de Son Eglise.34 And this programme was rapidly put into practice. Besides a number of articles published in the Pax Romana journal as well as debates among the officials of the member organizations, the General Secretariat of ICMICA promptly started work on a Seminar on human rights. In cooperation with the Katholische Akademikerverband, the Katholische Deutsche Akademikerschaft and the Görresgesellschaft, the people at the General Secretariat arranged a meeting in Limburg, Germany (from 18 March to 1 April 1951) that brought together around 170 participants from nine different countries, all discussing the significance of human rights:35

132   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) Der Hauptzweck liegt darin, die Menschenrechte und die Anliegen der UNESCO in Deutschland in möglichst vielen akademischen Kreisen bekanntzumachen, das Interesse für diese Probleme wirklich einmal zu wecken und besonders nach der Stellung im katholischen Bereich zu sehen. Aus diesem Grunde liegt uns daran, Vertreter aus allen Berufsschichten zu versammeln, also Juristen, Mediziner, Soziologen, Politiker, Journalisten usw. und nicht nur Wissenschaftler und Fachleute auf diesem Gebiet.36 Regrettably, the minutes of the discussions at Limburg did not find their way into the archives of Pax Romana, and the Katholische Akademikerverband did not carry out its initial plan to publish the papers presented to participants. From a letter written by Georg Moch (from the Katholische Akademikerverband) to Sugranyes de Franch, we know, however, the titles of the papers presented at the meeting: • • • •

‘Les droits de l’homme’ (R.P. Marc Dubois). ‘Die Sicherung der Menschenrechte durch die internationale Rechtsordnung’ (Hermann Mosler, about to become the director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law). ‘Die Menschenrechte in der Geschichte und Philosophie’ (Heinrich Kipp, at the time Regierungsdirektor/Section Head). ‘Die Menschenrechte und der Verfassungskompromiss’ (Hermann Mosler).37

Moreover, the final resolutions of the meeting are to be found in the archives, and these resolutions provide a good idea of how the participants finally conceptualized human rights: Ils [the participants of the Seminar] ont constaté avec satisfaction les progrès ainsi réalisés pour la sauvegarde des droits de l’homme. Les intellectuels catholiques venus à Limburg de différents pays d’Europe et d’Amérique, conscients des obligations découlant pour eux par leur foi et de l’amour du prochain, souhaitent, en adoptant des résolutions suivantes, apporter une contribution positive aux négociations en cours: 1 2 3 4 5

[. . .] l’attention sur le droit primordial fondé sur la nature a donc venu de Dieu [. . .] [. . .] nul ne peut renoncer à la protection ni au droit [de propriété] ni du droit à indemnisation en cas d’expropriation [. . .] [. . .] le droit de participer à la désignation et au contrôle de la direction de l’Etat. En cas de violation grave des droits de l’Homme, le droit à la résistance est légitime [. . .] [. . .] La protection du droit à la vie [. . .] [. . .] La protection contre l’extermination, entendue dans le sens de la convention sur le génocide [. . .].38

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   133 Taken together, these bits of information provide enough material to characterize Pax Romana’s early construction of the human rights discourse triggered by cooperation with the UN. In comparison to the highly sophisticated contemporary debates on human rights that took place on the stage of international politics, this document has to be characterized as a rather ‘naïve’ text, or – as one of the participants put it – as a number of ‘simple statements on a few fundamental provisions.’39 The resolution actually repeats, more or less, the human rights position that Pax Romana had developed throughout the previous years. This is precisely the point that makes these developments so significant for the present analyses. In the early 1950s, the General Secretariat of Pax Romana really tried to introduce the very idea of human rights among its constituency. More than a decade before Vatican II, the people at Fribourg committed themselves actively to human rights – beyond the level of mere formal statements or official resolutions. To put this differently: in about five years they were able to establish a human rights discourse inside Pax Romana that drew significantly on the debates inside the UN. In this respect, the Limburg workshop stands for the first climax as well as a major turning point in the history of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities. Throughout the 1940s, human rights ideas entered Pax Romana via the cooperation with the UN and triggered the establishment of a human rights discourse inside Pax Romana; and Limburg clearly documents this process. At the same time, it stands for the halt that was put on those processes. The years following the Limburg workshop saw continued commitment to the idea of human rights – with only minor changes to the convictions established in the 1940s. These activities became, however, primarily an enterprise in the hands of experts working at the General Secretariat, the newly emerging offices of the ICO and – to a lesser degree – the offices in New York City and Geneva. In a nutshell, the turn from the 1940s to the 1950s can be identified as the end of a first – and rather dynamic – phase of Pax Romana activities in the context of the UN and the beginning of a second phase characterized by an advanced profiling of a decisively Roman Catholic approach to human rights in a multipolar context. In this second phase Pax Romana’s role changed significantly. It developed from being a pioneer of Roman Catholic UN-­related activities into one actor among an increasing number of others. And this process formed the basis for a new approach to human rights inside Pax Romana.

6.2  Profiling in a multipolar context – Roman Catholic human rights (1951–1964) This second phase of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities covers a period of almost 15 years that starts with the increasing dichotomy between the two political blocs (from the mid-­1940s onwards) as well as the period of post-­war de-­ colonialization (right into the mid-­1960s). In terms of UN history, this second phase covers the whole term of Dag Hammarskjöld as Secretary General as well as the first years of U Thant’s tenure, starting in 1961. These years saw the

134   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) Korean War as well as the Suez and the Cuban Crisis. They also include, however, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Price to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1954), to Dag Hammerskjöld (1961), and to the United Nations Children’s Fund (1965). As far as the analyses at hand are concerned, it is interesting to see that under these conditions, the UN and the human rights discourse inside Pax Romana underwent no abrupt changes. Unlike the discussions inside the CCIA, the debates inside Pax Romana were not dominated by ongoing controversies around the theological basis of their activities. The protagonists inside Pax Romana were in no way hesitant to legitimate their human rights activities with reference to already existing theological traditions inside Roman Catholicism. Correspondingly, the respective changes can be described as slowly proceeding shifts (rather than open controversies) leading, however, to a direction that was quite similar to trends inside the CCIA. From the 1960s onwards, the international relations experts inside Pax Romana slowly began to establish a new approach to UN-­ related activities. Despite this continuity on the discourse level, Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities went through fundamental structural changes. The first generation of Pax Romana’s representatives in Geneva, Paris, and New York City finished (for instance) its activities around the turn from the 1940s to the 1950s – mainly out of personal reasons. A new group had to be found, and the upcoming analyses will show to what extent the following years were dominated by a new set of people that became particularly known for their expertise in Roman Catholic activities in international relations: •

•

•

Edward Kirchner: the first long-­time representative of Pax Romana in the UN context who served also as President and Vice-­President of Pax Romana during World War II and director of the social programmes of Pax Romana in the post-­war period; Henri de Riedmatten: from 1953 to 1958 Ecclesiastic Counsellor of the so-­ called ‘Centre d’Information Catholique’ in Geneva that contributed significantly to Pax Romana’s activities; later to become the first Permanent Representative of the Holy See in Geneva and the Secretary of Cur Unum; and Thomas P. Melady: another representative of Pax Romana in New York City who was, at the beginning of his term, Professor at St John’s University and President of the ‘Africa Service Institute’; later to become US ambassador to Burundi, Uganda, and the Holy See.

In addition, the very nature of the field of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities changed considerably. The previous analyses should already have made it very clear that Pax Romana had always worked in a multipolar setting. During the following decade, however, two new poles emerged inside that setting that had direct links to the UN. First, during the 1950s, Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities became more and more integrated into the structural network of

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   135 International Catholic Organizations/ICOs. Second, the 1960s saw the beginnings of an increasing presence of the Holy See in international relations – primarily associated with the establishment of Permanent Observer Missions in Geneva and New York City and the first visit of a Pope to the General Assembly of the UN in 1964. And these two poles dominated the work of Pax Romana during the second phase of its UN activities, triggering the establishment of two rationales with regard to the UN that evolved almost in parallel. Following the chronological order of events, the next section starts with a reconstruction of the first of these structural changes, the establishment of the ICOs as a new pole in Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities that further strengthened their self-­understanding as a Catholic NGO. 6.2.1  First new pole: the International Catholic Organizations To understand the developments that were linked to the establishment of this new pole, one needs to start with a closer look at the Centre d’Information Catholique des Organisations Internationales Catholiques, which was founded on 4 February 1950 at a meeting of the ICOs in Luxembourg (parallel to the International Catholic Organizations Information Center established in 1946 by the National Catholic Welfare Conference/NCWC in New York City), and which represents one of the first attempts of RNGOs with one particular affiliation to establish closer cooperation vis-­à-vis the UN. In one of the first flyers of the ICOs this reads: Le développement d’une vie internationale intense, dans des questions qui intéressent fondamentalement le monde chrétien, oblige les catholiques à exercer une activité dans des domaines qui étaient peu connus jusqu’à ce jour. Qu’on le veuille ou non, les organisations internationales officielles prennent de plus en plus importance et imposent très souvent, même aux Etats souverains, leurs décisions et leurs points de vue. Il est donc essentiel que les catholiques veillent à ce que ces décisions soient inspirées par les principes chrétiens ou, du moins, ne leur soient pas contraires, et qu’ils agissent avec énergie et d’une façon efficace là où les idéaux chrétiens sont en jeu.40 For the present analysis, this early self-­description of the Centre is of twofold significance: On the one hand, it illustrates that the ICOs internally perceived the Centre d’Information to be an indispensable consequence of their role as lay organizations inside the Catholic Church. On the other hand, it underlines the close nexus between Pax Romana and the general ICO community – based upon a joint affiliation to the Roman Catholic Church as well as a joint interest in international relations. With the foundation of the Centre, Pax Romana started to closely integrate itself into a group of NGOs that tried to establish a specific approach of Catholic lay organizations to international politics.

136   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) And this was a highly successful strategy. Under the leadership of Jadwiga de Romer (the first Secretary General of the Centre from 1950 to 1956) and Henri de Riedmatten (the Ecclesiastic Counsellor from 1953 to 1958) the Centre became a central resource for the UN-­related activities of Pax Romana.41 De Romer participated in all the major Geneva meetings of the Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, etc. and the Pax Romana archives show that the detailed reports coming out of these activities almost immediately started to form the basis of human rights debates inside Pax Romana as well as the formulation of official positions. Interestingly enough, this trend towards ICO action inside the UN was embedded in parallel developments on the side of the Church hierarchies. In 1953, the Holy See formally established the ‘Fondation Pie XII’ (with its bylaw formally approved by the Holy See on 16/XII/1953) as an explicit attempt to support ICO-­activities in international relations: SA CREATION: La Fondation Pie XII a été érigée par décision de S.S. le Pape Pie XII qui en a approuvé les statuts en date du 28 octobre 1953 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 16 décembre 1953, T.XLY p. 821). Elle a son siège dans la Cité du Vatican et jouit de la personnalité juridique. SES BUTS: Le but essentiel de la Fondation est de soutenir et promouvoir les œuvres internationales catholiques de l’apostolat des laïcs. A cette fin, la Fondation administre son patrimoine initial et les biens qui lui son remis (cf. art. II des statuts).42 In other words, the Holy See founded an institution that was supposed to help Church hierarchies in their support of UN-­related activities without itself taking action. And this implicit division of labour worked for almost a decade. Cooperation with the other ICOs became an important pole that dominated the activities of Pax Romana in the context of the UN during this second phase. And until the mid-­1960s, the Holy See played only an indirect role in those activities. This set the stage for the next developments. The late 1950s and early 1960s saw a reluctant immersion of Pax Romana into the human rights debates that took place inside the UN. This trend was primarily pushed forward by respective experts inside the ICOs as well as the new Roman Catholic social teaching. Both processes will now be reconstructed in greater detail. 6.2.2  Immersion in UN affairs As far as the UN-­related side is concerned, it is helpful to start the reconstruction of these processes from the internal debates on the ‘Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices’ (undertaken under the auspices of Arcot Krishnaswami) that developed into one of the major human rights-­related activities of Pax Romana during the 1950s. One of the earliest references to this topic (in the advent of an NGO-­conference on discrimination, taking place on 31 March to 4 April 1955) is to be found in a letter Sugranyes de Franch wrote to

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   137 Michel Charpentier that sets the stage for a three-­step process leading to increasing commitment to the work of the study Commission as well as the UN-­ discussions that took place inside the Commission. The first of these steps can be illustrated by the following quotation, which documents nothing but a high degree of reluctance on the side of Pax Romana’s General Secretariat to invest too much time in UN-­related activities on religious persecution. Actually, the author characterized this whole business as a ‘shindig’, thus legitimating his attempts to stay out of the debates: La conférence des ONG sur la discrimination, à Genève, m’a donné déjà pas mal de fil à retordre. Pour ma part, je crois que cette conférence sera une immense foire, où chacun exposera des cas différents de discrimination et dont rien de positif ne sortira. Tu vois d’ici les catholiques parlant de persécutions religieuses (et avec raison!); les protestants parlant de prétendues persécutions en Colombie, en Espagne et ailleurs; les communistes parlant de nègres des Etats-­Unis, de marocains, de tunisiens et de toute sorte d’autres persécutions. A mon avis, nous devons être très prudents quant à la participation de Pax Romana à cette conférence.43 In a second step, Sugranyes de Franch changed the legitimation of Pax Romana’s initial absence from the Krishnaswami Commission, while still refraining from any further cooperation. In a letter to de Riedmatten, de Franch kept arguing that Pax Romana should not participate in the work of the Krishnaswami study, now legitimizing his reluctance with the argument that Pax Romana was not sufficiently qualified to add a contribution to these discussions. And this shift seems to be more than just an attempt to reduce the workload of the Secretariat. Keeping in mind that, at the same time, the people in Fribourg contributed a detailed survey to a parallel study on education, it can be argued that this reluctance to associate Pax Romana with the topic of discrimination was actually based upon the idea that it was not sufficiently linked to the aims of Pax Romana. The third step towards Pax Romana’s new and increasing commitment to human rights followed just a few months later. In mid-­1956, Pax Romana’s General Secretariat published a paper, entitled: ‘Etudes des mesures discriminatoires dans le domaine de la liberté de religion et des pratiques religieuses’44 that clearly supported the work of the Krishnaswami study, and consisted primarily of a number of national reports focusing mainly on East European countries such as Hungary, Albania, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the USSR. The agenda of the report is described in the following way: Nous donnons en confirmation une série de cas typiques choisis comme exemples, soit de persécution ouverte, soit de discrimination flagrante contre l’Eglise catholique. Nous ne prétendons pas – hélas! – avoir épuisé le sujet. Notre but est de signaler ces cas à l’attention bienveillante de M. le Rapporteur et de lui suggérer les grandes lignes le long desquelles il pourrait orienter sa recherche.45

138   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) So, the end of this two-­year process saw an inversion of Pax Romana’s initial approach towards the Commission, and the decision to increase cooperation with the UN on human rights. From 1956 onwards, the General Secretariat started to perceive cooperation with the Commission as an activity that might open the way to add to the work of Krishnaswami. In the course of this process, the whole legitimation of the work with the UN changed from an attempt to follow up upon Roman Catholic interests to the much more general aim of contributing to UN debates in general. And this approach started to permeate Pax Romana. From the second half of the 1950s onwards, the General Secretariat of Pax Romana continued to follow the discussions of the Krishnaswami Commission right to its final report – published early 1960 – contributing another survey and several official statements.46 In sum, these developments illustrate a twofold process. On the one hand, they underline the increasing general significance of UN-­related human rights debates for Pax Romana’s General Secretariat. On the other hand, however, they stand for the emergence of a new kind of expert that started to integrate the work for human rights into the framework of Pax Romana. Throughout the 1950s, the Centre d’Information developed into a main actor in the field of UN-­related human rights debates (the representatives were no longer based in Geneva or New York City) and Pax Romana’s General Secretariat followed almost immediately. Right into the second half of the 1960s, representatives of Pax Romana continued to attend major meetings at the UN without, however, participating in major debates. And this was but one strand of the developments in question. The input from the UN was actually accompanied by changes in the theological framing of Pax Romana’s activities – primarily the new social teaching. 6.2.3  New social teaching as major frame of reference The impact of this second strand on Pax Romana’s UN- and human rights-­ related activities can best be illustrated with regard to a conference Pax Romana organized in Fribourg, Switzerland (23–31 July 1961) to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of its foundation. In terms of practical organization, the Fribourg Conference was divided into three main sections. The first days were dominated by meetings of the different Secretariats of Pax Romana (e.g. artists, school teachers, pharmacists, scientists, etc.). The ‘Official Day’ was held on 27 July, with talks given by the presidents of IMCS and ICMICA, as well as lectures by Oscar Halecki (‘The History of Pax Romana’), Cardinal König of Vienna (‘The Doctrinal Bases of the Intellectual Apostolate’) and a Pontifical Mass by König and Msgr. François Charrière (at the time Bishop of Lausanne, Genève, and Fribourg and General Ecclesiastical Assistant of Pax Romana). The remaining days were reserved for the assemblies of Pax Romana’s two branches, which were organized quite independently of each other and with specific timetables as well as distinct featured topics. There was, however, one joint denominator between these plenary assemblies that is of significance for the

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   139 a­ nalyses at hand. Both meetings featured papers presented by Vittorino Veronese (at the time the Director General of UNESCO) and the former Prime Minister of France, Pierre Pflimlin, thus indicating that the organizers wanted to feature the particular links between these two internationally renowned civil servants and the overall activities of Pax Romana. In the context of our analyses, it is interesting to see the extent to which this development was embedded in more general changes at the level of theology. At least that is what a ‘Rapport pour les commissions du programme de l’Assemblée de Fribourg’ (dated June 1961) suggests, which summarized the answers to a questionnaire sent to the member organizations of ICMICA. In its general introduction, the report sketches the new dynamics Pax Romana described as the frame of reference for its activities: La naissance de plusieurs de nos groupements d’intellectuels européens se situe dans une période [. . .] où une nouvelle conception du rôle de l’Eglise dans le monde de la culture s’est fait jour [. . .]. Elle est le fruit d’une prise de conscience croissante du fait qu’une unité culturelle du monde, basée sur l’unité de la foi chrétienne, comme elle a pu exister au moyen âge en Europe, est un rêve aujourd’hui moins réalisable que jamais. [. . .] L’Eglise actuelle est partout en état de mission, car elle doit être présente dans toutes les sociétés humaines, sans toutefois en diriger une seule. [. . .] Dans cette mission de l’Eglise, les intellectuels ont un grand rôle à jouer, puisqu’ils forment souvent la conscience d’un dynamisme social. 47 This introductory paragraph adds two decisive points of view to the self-­ description of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities. First, it highlights the new role of the Church (rather than the specific role of Pax Romana as a Roman Catholic lay organization), and links Pax Romana’s work to this much wider context. Second, the text asks for contacts with non-­Catholic intellectuals as well as attempts to influence ‘les organisations neutres’: Sur le plan international, Pax Romana, grâce à ses représentants spéciaux auprès des instances officielles internationales, a pu exercer une influence tant sur ces organisations que auprès des ONG (une preuve en est que M. Szmitkowski a été récemment élu vice-­président du comité des ONG). Il semble néanmoins nécessaire que le Mouvement, en étroit collaboration avec ses fédérations nationales, essaie de développer un programme pour les catholiques engagés dans les institutions officielles internationales, qui se trouvent souvent concentrés dans les villes comme Paris, Genève, Bruxelles, Luxembourg et New York.48 Taken together, these two quotations illustrate how the people at the General Secretariat (1) started to see international relations as a context ‘the Church’ (as opposed to only the ICOs or Pax Romana) had to be present in, and (2) how this change was legitimated in reference to most recent theological debates. And this

140   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) was embedded in much more general developments inside the RCC: Cardinal König presented for example a speech to the Fribourg conference that concluded with the following words: Die Einheit des Menschengeschlechtes ist gegeben durch Ursprung, Natur und die Aufforderung, in Christus einmal ganz eins zu werden. Diese christliche Erkenntnis muss uns das grössere Konzept und die stärkere Zuversicht geben [. . .] Die Welt wird immer kleiner und die noch lebendigen großen Kulturen der Welt kommen in eine immer engere Berührung miteinander. Könnte in diesem Zusammenhang nicht die katholische Schule bei uns ein in die Zukunft weisendes Beispiel der Völkerverständigung geben.49 This excerpt puts the changes that happened between the first and second phase of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities in a nutshell. In comparison to the 1950s, it situates Pax Romana’s authorities inside a strand of the official Church hierarchies primarily associated with an ecumenical approach to social teaching. In doing so, it documents how a new reading of human rights became introduced to Pax Romana that was in line with the upcoming theological debates of the time. In other words, in 1961, König revitalized Pax Romana’s human rights commitment of the 1950s in a totally new way. He constructed, however, the reference to human rights in a way that included them much more explicitly – in a wider Roman Catholic frame of reference – than Pax Romana did.50 The next section will show how these activities were increasingly determined by the second new pole that started to dominate Pax Romana’s activities in the UN context – the presence of the Permanent Observers of the Holy See. 6.2.4  Second new pole – Permanent Observer of the Holy See The first group of people inside Pax Romana that were in direct contact with these changes was, of course, the representatives before the UN. This group was, however, not at all homogenous. As indicated in the primary sections of this chapter, the early representatives (James E. Dougherty, Saint Joseph’s University, Oscar Halecki, Fordham University, and Marc Dubois) were primarily Catholic scholars at the beginning of their respective careers.51 This particular emphasis started to change with the second phase of UN-­related activities in the mid-­1950s. In 1956, Edward J. Kirchner (the President of Pax Romana around the 1939 Congress in the USA) became the first long- term representative of Pax Romana who de facto retained this position for almost a decade (right up to 1965). Throughout his term, as Kirchner’s letters to Fribourg show, he added a new dimension to the UN-­related work, seeing himself primarily as a networker with no personal career interests.52 This trend continued with Thomas P. Melady (Pax Romana’s representative from the end of 1965 up to 1968) and Raymond F. Kelly (the Executive Director of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities in New York City). Melady was (and still is) primarily a distinguished expert with manifold personal links to Amer­ican

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   141 and African politics and not an academic who pursued a university career (even though he worked for some time as Professor at St John’s University and Fordham University). In this way, he added a new emphasis of political expertise to the work of the representatives of Pax Romana in the UN context – similar to Henri de Riedmatten and (later on) Tadeuz Szmitkowski for the ICO. From the mid-­1960s onwards, the work of the representatives became more and more affected by the increasing presence of the Holy See, which was about to develop into an independent actor before the UN. Melady was among the ICO representatives who personally welcomed the first Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN in New York City (from 1964 to 1973: Msgr. Giovannetti)53 and participated in the first visit of Pope Paul VI to the UN. Raymond F. Kelly became a kind of chronicler of these processes by sending a number of reports to Fribourg: First in importance was the arrival of Msgr. Giovannetti, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations. His status as an accredited Ambassador shows that the Holy Father is truly concerned with participation at the United Nations and the other International Agencies. We at Pax Romana sponsored the first informal meeting which helped to introduce Msgr. Giovannetti to some of the UN members as well as other New Yorkers interested in international affairs. Then we were able to follow this up with a large scale Formal Reception at the United Nations in his honor, at which the Secretary General, U Thant, attended with 40 Ambassadors and over 400 guests.54 Even taking into account the fact that the author was able to resist the attempt to stress his own significance, this report indicates that the nomination of the Permanent Observer really introduced a new pole into Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities. On the one hand, the quotation shows that during the mid-­1960s, the Holy See was only able to rely on limited resources in this field. On the other hand, it underlines the point that the activities of the Holy See put organizations such as Pax Romana into a new position. They were confronted with a new player (or rather a new relationship to a well-­known player) that was able to rely on additional power in the context of the UN as well as in the context of the Catholic Church. Only a few months later, Paul VI was the first Pope to make a visit to the UN (and at the same time undertaking the third trip of a reigning Pope outside Italy in more than a hundred years). In his carefully drafted speech on 4 October 1965, he sketched his own perception of the role of the Holy See in the context of the UN in particular, as well as international relations in general, in the following way: Allow us to tell you that we have a message to each one of you. We might call our message, first of all a solemn and moral ratification of this lofty institution. This message comes from our historical experience. As an

142   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) ‘expert in humanity’, we bring to this Organization the voices of our predecessors, that of the entire Catholic Episcopate, and our own, convinced as we are that this Organization represents the sole and only path of modern civilization and of world peace. [. . .] We would almost be tempted to say that your chief characteristic is a reflection, as it were, in the temporal field of what our Catholic Church aspires to be in the spiritual field: unique and universal.55 On the level of discourse, this speech called upon a self-­perception of the Holy See that was quite close to the self-­descriptions documented in the previous sections on Pax Romana’s 1961 Assembly in Fribourg – highlighting the role of the Church for peace as well as modern civilization. On the structural level, it indicates that the Holy See took over a position so far associated with the ICOs being, however, equipped with the much more powerful status of a nation state (and not an NGO). This was at least the perception of the ICO representatives at the time, which can be illustrated with a memorandum Melady wrote on the Pope’s visit to New York: The following is my general evaluation of Pope Paul’s visit to the United Nations. [. . .] The Afro-­Asian reaction to the visit of His Holiness Pope Paul VI to the United Nations was instantaneous. It was also one of joyous warmth. [. . .] I have talked to the African delegates in some depth, and it is quite obvious that they feel the Holy Father represents the conscience of the world. [. . .] Following the visit of the Vatican officials, the representatives of the representatives of the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish Centers at the U.N. were designated as the arrangers for the meeting that the leaders if the three faiths would have with the Holy Father. As the Representative of Pax Romana, I participated in those meetings and was in the second pew of the Church when we were presented to the Pope.56 In this respect, the establishment of the Holy See as a new pole changed the overall set-­up of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities significantly. The new situation can be summarized in Figure 6.2. In comparison to Figure 6.1 this chart initially indicates one continuity in Pax Romana’s UN activities. Around the turn from the mid-­1960s to the 1970s, Pax Romana was still represented by individuals with relatively weak institutional support from the General Secretariat. At the same time, the Holy See was intensifying its presence in the UN context, sending the first Permanent Representatives with the institutional support of the Roman Secretariat of State. In other words, the Holy See started to change the whole set-­up of Roman Catholic cooperation with regard to the UN. In the case of Pax Romana, this triggered the increasing cooperation of the General Secretariat with the other Roman Catholic NGOs, by now organized into International Catholic Organizations (ICO). The following section will argue that the changes in the position of Pax  Romana had significant – yet probably unintended and highly ambivalent

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   143 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) UN

Gen. Sec.

Holy See

CIO

Figure 6.2  Organizational set-up of ICMICA/IMCS in the 1970s.

– ­consequences for the development of UN-­related activities of Pax Romana in particular and the ICO in general. On the one hand, the increasing influence of the Holy See supported the approaches taken by the ICO. On the other hand, it  weakened their position inside the Catholic Church. Taken together, this led  towards a totally new mode of action of Pax Romana inside the NGO community.

6.3  Integration in the NGO community – liberation and human rights (1965–1977) In order to reconstruct these developments, one needs to relate three distinct, yet interconnected processes: on the one hand, the mid-­1960s were a time of major changes inside the Roman Catholic Church, most prominently associated with the Second Vatican Council (Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum) from 11 October 1962 to 8 December 1965 and the attempts to trigger an aggiornamento. With regard to a student organization such as Pax Romana, it is, on the other hand, important to keep in mind to what extent the turn from the 1960s to the 1970s was influenced by the so-­called ‘student protests’ and the civil rights movement, which stood for major shifts in the social fabric of Western societies. In addition, we can add one further process that is of particular importance with regard to the UN: from the early 1960s onwards, the UN developed more and more into a platform for international activism. One aspect of the last of these three trends was the increasing proclamation of ‘World Years’ of special observance of particular topics. This trend started in 1959–1960 with the ‘World Year for Refugees’,57 and reached an interim peak

144   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) in 2009 (proclaimed the Year of Reconciliation, of Natural Fibres, of Human Rights Learning, of Astronomy, and finally (by UNEP and UNESCO) the Year of the Gorilla). Quite early on in this process, the UN General Assembly decided to officially declare 1968 the ‘International Year for Human Rights’, and Pax Romana played a major role in the preparation and implementation of the respective NGO activities.58 These activities of Pax Romana were dominated by a new set of protagonists – this time with much stronger links to the wider NGO community and clear-­cut expertise in UN affairs: • • •

Tadeuz Szmitkowski: the long-­term Secretary General of the Centre d’Information as well as Pax Romana’s representative in Geneva; Eric Sottas: the Secretary General of ICMICA from 1975 to 1979 and, in 1985, to become the co-­founder and first Secretary General of the ‘World Organization Against Torture/OMCT; and Eileen Egan: a British born peace activist, who, from the 1940s, worked in America for Catholic Relief Services and Pax Christi and started to represent Pax Romana before the UN in 1969.

Along with those new representatives, the whole period of the late 1960s and the early 1970s bears a distinct resemblance to developments inside the CCIA. As in the context of the WCC, these decades were dominated by increasing integration of Pax Romana into the wider NGO community as well as wider integration of NGO thinking into Pax Romana. In the case of Pax Romana, this overall process started slowly with first approaches leading up to the Human Rights Year of 1968 and reached an early climax with a human rights centred controversy in 1977. So, let’s begin the following considerations with a reconstruction of the immersion of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities in the wider NGO community that can be exemplified with regards to the activities around the Human Rights Year 1968. 6.3.1  Immersion in the wider NGO community From 1966 onwards, Pax Romana contributed to the preparation of the International Year of Human Rights on three interlinked levels. First, Pax Romana acted as an active partner of the ICO Centre d’Information in Geneva and played a role in its preparation and implementation. Second, the General Secretariat committed itself to activities to support human rights discourse inter alia publishing human rights-­related articles and contributing to the work of the NGO Committee for the International Year for Human Rights. Third, representatives in New York City tried to contribute to these developments by organising events inside the UN.59 Taken together, these activities stand for another change in Pax Romana’s approach to human rights. The direction of this change can first be illustrated

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   145 with regard to a letter (dated 3 November 1967) in which Thomas P. Melady gives a ‘Report of Pax Romana Representative to UN for September and October 1967’ to the newly elected Secretaries General of the IMCS (Jürgen Nikolai, 1967–1971) and ICMICA (Ludwig Dembinski, 1967–1971): I In September I met with the Secretary General of the UN, U Thant, and informally discussed my proposal for the UN Year of Human Rights in 1968 [. . . focussing on an] Encyclical by the Holy Father on racism [. . . delivered] in a historic ceremony where leaders of the World Council of Churches and the Secretary General of the UN could be present. II The Secretary General responded quite enthusiastically to my proposal. [. . .] III I have discussed the matter at length with Dr. Eugene Blake, Secretary General, World Council of Churches, who has pledged the full cooperation of the World Council about participating in such a ceremony. IV While in Rome for the Third Congress For The Laity Apostolate, I met with Monsignor Laghi [about to be appointed Apostolic Delegate to Jerusalem and Palestine in 1969] and discussed the proposal in depth with him. [. . .] V This activity of course is only one of the several that should occur in the YEAR OF HUMAN RIGHTS. I have stressed that the problem of racism is so crucial that it should not be mixed with anything else. In my firm opinion, the Encyclical and the ceremony should be devoted to racism.60 This short report is of particular significance for the present argument in as far as it documents how Melady used the opportunity of the 1968 International Year of Human Rights to introduce his idea to present a Papal Encyclical on Racism in the context of the WCC and the UN. Even though this initiative never came into existence, it very accurately mirrors the spirit of the time.61 On the one hand, it shows the extent to which the activities of the UN and the activities of the Holy See pushed Pax Romana into more intense cooperation with other NGOs. On the other hand, it makes clear that reference to human rights discourse began to play a significant role in this equation. And Melady was even rather conservative in his attempt to coordinate his activities with the Holy See. The General Secretariat and the ICOs tried much more outspokenly to link their actions to other NGOs. From 1967, the Pax Romana archives include, for example, extensive debates with the World Jewish Council, the Comité International des Organisations non gouvernementales pour l’Année des Droits de l’Homme, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the Anti­Slavery Society for the Protection of Human Rights, the Boston College Law School etc., in order to establish closer cooperation.62 In other words, Pax Romana started to establish itself as an actor inside the wider NGO community.63

146   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) And this tendency can also be seen with regard to the construction of discourses. In a short response to a UN questionnaire on NGO activities for the International Year of Human Rights, the Pax Romana officials in Fribourg underlined changes inside their own constituency that were actively contributing to general human rights protests: Many of our federations have been actively involved in student and other protest movements for justice and human rights and freedoms [. . .]. The International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs (graduate branch of Pax Romana) will hold in August in Philadelphia, USA, its 20th international world Assembly on the theme ‘Four Faces of Poverty’ [. . .]. A colloque was held in Venice from 1–3 June 1968 on ‘Social Justice and the Ethics of Revolution.64 These new developments affected, once again, the work of Pax Romana’s representatives in New York City. In 1967 and1968, Pax Romana got trapped in a two-­year controversy over its formal NGO status that is of particular interest in as far as it asks the very question of what Pax Romana’s role inside the UN context was. During those two years, UN officials suspected that Pax Romana had contact with the Central Intelligence Agency/CIA of the United States of America. At the time this meant not only the allegation of state support, which contradicted its NGO status; it also suggested that Pax Romana was associated with institutions perceived as extremely traditional.65 In both respects, the General Secretariat distanced itself successfully from the allegation. On the one hand, it underlined its independence from all state support. On the other hand, it nominated – one year after Melady’s demission (in 1968) – Eileen Egan as the representative of Pax Romana before the UN (up to 1974). Well known for her work with the ‘Amer­ican PAX Association’ and (later on) ‘Pax Christi-­USA’, Egan was much less traditional than Melady and profited at that time from Pax Romana’s NGO status to voice her commitment to conscientious objection, etc. So, as far as practical work was concerned, she started to introduce a much more activist attitude into Pax Romana’s activities. In terms of concrete practices, it is interesting to see that all these processes seemingly followed a rather consensual pattern. On the structural level, they were interpreted as a consequence of the activities of the Holy See, with ambivalent consequences for Pax Romana. On the level of content, they were almost immediately linked to the newly emerging ideals of liberation theology. The following two sections reconstruct these developments separately. 6.3.2  Pushed in a new direction In order to properly assess the structural aspect of these new trends, one needs to keep in mind that some former Pax Romana members and officials actually played a significant role in the organizational changes that took place inside the Roman Catholic Church around the end of the 1960s. To give but two examples:

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   147 the former Secretary General, Ramon Sugranyes de Franch, became one of the lay representatives at the Second Vatican Council. Rosamery Goldie (among the first editors of Pax Romana’s journal in the post-­war period) worked first as officer of the Permanent Committee for International Congresses for the Lay Apostolate/COPECIAL and later for the Pontifical Council for Laity. As far as the UN-­related work of Pax Romana was concerned, the consequences of Vatican II were, however, perceived in an ambivalent way. In an internal paper, entitled ‘La Situation actuelle et les perspectives d’avenir de Pax Romana – MIIC’, Ludwig Dembinski (at that time the Secretary General of the professional branch of Pax Romana/ICMICA) summed up his impressions in the following way: Depuis le Concile Vatican II la pyramide autoritaire de l’Eglise est en train de se transformer en une structure pluricentrique (avec une importance accrue donnée aux Eglises locales), ouverte au monde, pluraliste, démocratique et décléricalisée. Etant donné qu’actuellement il existe en fait une liberté de discuter tout point de doctrine et tout problème de l’Eglise, la possibilité de dialogue, à tout les échelons de l’Eglise, entre la hiérarchie et les laïcs, une démocratisation croissante des structures ecclésiales la participation de plus en plus active des laïcs à l’élaboration de décisions à tous les échelons, les O.I.C. ont perdu une bonne partie de leurs anciennes fonctions. Cela a produit nécessairement une crise des organisations catholiques, des difficultés dans leur fonctionnement, une incertitude en ce qui concerne leurs tâches dans l’Eglise et dans la société.66 In other words, Ludwig Dembinski describes the new activities of the Holy See not only as positive reform but also as an intrusion into the field of the ICO rather than support for their activities.67 And this was not the only voice inside Pax Romana that argued along those lines. Around the same time, a short booklet of Ramon Sugranyes de Franch pointed in a similar direction: Heute noch von internationalen katholischen Organisationen zu sprechen und ihnen sogar einen ganzen Band dieser Sammlung zu widmen, mag manchen ein müßiges Unterfangen erscheinen. Die drei hier angeführten Begriffe „Organisationen“, „international“ und „katholisch“, beschwören heute eine Krisensituation herauf; alle drei unterliegen mehr oder weniger tief einschneidenden Überprüfungen.68 Under these conditions, it was not at all surprising that the Programme of the 1971 Congress of Pax Romana, celebrating its fiftieth anniversary in Fribourg, Switzerland, almost immediately started to absorb the new ideas of liberation theology, which stood for an approach among Roman Catholic theologians that distanced themselves from the authorities of the Holy See via an explicit reference to the problems of ‘the world’.

148   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) 6.3.3  Absorbing the idea of liberation Formally speaking, the Congress that celebrated Pax Romana’s fiftieth anniversary offered no basic innovations. Parallel to the Fribourg Conference five years earlier, the Congress began with meetings of the two branches – IMCS (from 4 to 17 July 1971) and ICMICA (12–17 July 1971). During the next four days, Pax Romana celebrated its fiftieth birthday in joint sessions – first in Fribourg (17–18 July) and then in Rome (19–20 July). At the level of discourse, however, these two weeks stood under the main theme of ‘Libération de l’Homme – Taches pour les Années 70’.69 With regard to UN-­related activities, this meant a distancing from older ideals. Only one out of the 11 papers to be presented under the heading of ‘Liberation’ was written by one of the UN specialists mentioned so far. Thomas P. Melady delivered a speech entitled ‘Les systèmes politiques internationaux comme facteurs de libération.’ Unfortunately, the respective paper cannot be found in the archives of Pax Romana. There are, however, summary minutes of the working section that document Melady’s focus upon these ideals: Lorsqu’on se trouve devant l’injustice il faut faire appel à la responsabilité humaine et chrétienne. Pour trouver une stratégie qui aide à dépasser l’injustice, il est nécessaire de chercher une information sérieuse [. . . et] faire un effort de compréhension sympathique. [. . .] PAX ROMANA, en collaboration avec les organisations chrétiennes ou autres, a une responsabilité spécifique à cet égard.70 This rather traditional approach was, however, no longer in the majority. Most of the presenters at the 1971 Congress tried to introduce new points of view. And this change can most easily be illustrated with reference to the main speakers on the final day of the Conference. In 1961, this was Cardinal König, at the time one of the protagonists of Catholic social thinking in Europe. Ten years later – in the year of the first publication of Gustavo Gutiérrez’ book A Theology of Liberation, Politics and Salvation71 – it was Hélder Câmara, the Archbishop of Olinda e Recife, who was among the major theologians of what is frequently called ‘liberation theology’. He presented a speech entitled: ‘Homme, veux-­tu être libre?’, in which he highlighted the idea of liberty as a general ideal for humankind: Mes Amis et mes Frères: regardez n’importe quel Groupe humain, de n’importe quel Pays, de n’importe quelle Race ou Religion. C’est possible et facile d’y découvrir quelques personnes – une Minorité [Abrahamique] – qui ne se jugent aucunement meilleures, ni plus grandes, ni plus intelligentes que les autres, mais qui sont marquées, par Dieu même. Elles sont nées pour les autres, pour se dévouer, pour se donner sans calcul, ni mesure. [. . .] Si vous demandez pourquoi j’appelle ces Minorités d’Abrahamique, je vous rappelle que, suivant l’exemple d’Abraham, elles doivent espérer, contre toute espérance. [. . .] Evidemment, ce nom changera selon les Races, les Pays, les Religions. Les

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   149 Minorités – alliées invisibles de deux sœurs libératrices – avec une très large diversité de noms, elles existent déjà, heureusement. Voulez-­vous un exemple décisif? Je vous invite à saluer le Jubilé d’une Minorité Abrahamique, connue dans le Monde entier par ses travaux, sous le nom de Pax Romana!72 Together with the new role of the Holy See in international relations, this shift towards a new strand of theological debate actually triggered major changes that started to dominate Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities throughout the following years. With regard to the UN in general and the commitment to human rights in particular, the following years saw developments that started an even stronger trend towards NGO activism. In this context, the protagonists inside Pax Romana increasingly tried to propagate human rights, while at the same time increasingly accepting a more activist stance that took controversies into account. 6.3.4  Tendency towards a new NGO activism This new tendency can be illustrated by one incidence from the 1970s that, at first sight, might look like a case déjà-vu from the 1940s or the 1960s. After the debate around Pax Romana’s formal accreditation (1948) and the CIA allegations in 1967–1968, the mid-­1970s saw a further attempt to question the NGO status of Pax Romana that was triggered by a statement, presented by Szmitkowski in the name of Pax Romana: a text to the thirty-­third session of the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. In this statement he directly attacked Chile and Argentina as human rights violators (28 April 1977): Comme le notent les rapports des nombreuses missions d’enquête effectuées par notre Mouvement International des Juristes Catholiques, mouvement qui dépend du Secrétariat Général de Pax Romana et dont la dernière mission a eu lieu il y a quelque jours au Brésil, la pratique de la violence et de la torture a perdu dans certains pays son aspect et son alibi d’opérations dites ponctuelles, prétendument nécessitées par des raisons de sécurité immédiate ou de découvert de preuves, pour se transformer en un instrument de terreur contre les populations et pour briser toute velléité d’opposition. Notre Mouvement, dans la lutte pour la défense des droits de l’homme, s’inspire et ne s’est toujours inspiré que par des principes évangéliques. C’est pourquoi il nous appartient en tant que chrétiens, en tant qu’organisation internationale catholique, de dénoncer sans équivoque l’instrumentalisation et le détournement qui sont faits de la foi et de l’idéal catholique pour justifier l’injustifiable.73 As inter alia documented in a letter of Eric Sottas to the Permanent Observer of Holy See in Geneva, Monseigneur Silvio Luoni (who acted from 1971 to 1978 as the second Permanent Observer after Henri de Riedmatten), this confrontation immediately entailed an attempt by these two countries to question Pax Romana’s NGO status (5 May 1977), which was well documented in the Pax Romana archives:

150   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) Comme je vous l’avais promis lors de notre dernière rencontre, je vous fais parvenir ci-­joint le texte des différentes interventions de Pax Romana lors de la 33ème session de la Commission des droits de l’homme a Genève. Nous avons en fait prévu de n’intervenir que deux fois, [. . .] la deuxième partie devait être prononcée par un Argentin, le Dr Mattarollo, apportant un témoignage fondé et réfléchi sur la situation dans son pays. [. . .] Le représentant du Chili, comme d’ailleurs celui de l’Argentine, ont eu quelques mots assez vifs contre Pax Romana. Je conçois parfaitement que nos interventions ne leur aient guère plu.74 In contrast to the incidents from the 1940s and 1960s, however, this quotation highlights two significant changes. On the one hand, Sottas legitimizes his activities without any explicit references to Catholic thinking. It is, first of all, the human rights aspect he refers to in order to support his activities. On the other hand, the cooperation with the Holy See seems to ask for a legitimation of his activities in front of the Permanent Observer. In other words, on the level of structure, there is still a link to other Catholic institutions in the field. On the level of discourse, though, this seems to have only limited significance – even with reference to the official representative of the Holy See. For the present analyses, this illustrates one significant change: whereas the first two debates were triggered by formal aspects of Pax Romana’s affiliation to state institutions, the controversy with Chile and Argentina was based upon the representative’s attempt to challenge the human rights agenda of two countries. In other words, the protagonists inside Pax Romana presented themselves to such a degree as human rights activists in the field of international relations that this triggered a negative response from the side of the two states involved. And this very much reflects the self-­perception of the actors inside Pax Romana. Of course, Sottas argued in a letter sent to other NGOs (Amnesty International, the Ligue internationale des Droits de l’Homme, and the Societé Anti-­ Esclavagiste)75 and a letter sent to the Secretary General of the UN (by now Kurt Waldheim) primarily on the basis of general human rights.76 At the same time, he also referred to this discourse addressing the Nuntio of the Holy See. In this letter the above controversies are described in the following way: Nous avons en outre organisé des missions d’observation en Argentine et nous sommes intervenus dans la Commission des Droits de l’Homme justement pour essayer d’obtenir du Gouvernement de ce pays qu’il assure le respect des droits fondamentaux de la personne. Cette intervention nous a valu de violentes critiques dans la presse de Buenos Aires et passablement de désagréments dus au fait que le Gouvernement argentin ne semble accepter aucune critique à la politique ultra-­répressive qu’il suit.77 In a nutshell: the late 1970s had seen a fundamental change in Pax Romana’s UN and human rights-­related activities. Human rights had become such a central aspect of Pax Romana’s self-­understanding that they tried to force this very idea

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   151 on the general agenda of the UN. Against this final step of the analysis, it is possible to sum up the overall argument in the following way.

6.4  From proponents of a lay vanguard to human rights activists This chapter started from the observation that Pax Romana is first of all an umbrella organization of Catholic students, formally established in the aftermath of World War  II in order to foster international cooperation. From this starting point, it developed into one of the major International Catholic Organizations/ICOs that cooperated with the United Nations/UN and tried to introduce a Roman Catholic point of view to this context. During the 1960s and 1970s, Pax Romana finally developed into an organization embedded in the wider NGO community and prominently working for the establishment of human rights. In order to understand the underlying processes, the above analyses re-­ constructed the self-­understanding of the protagonists inside Pax Romana along the lines of a three-­step process: during the earliest years, the main figures inside Pax Romana – in this sense rather close to the protagonists inside the CCIA – perceived the UN as a decisively secular institution of ‘the world’ they had to cooperate with. In the case of Pax Romana, this initial construction was, however, not based upon the conviction of establishing a religious counterpart to the secular UN. In the beginning, Pax Romana’s cooperation with the UN was rather based upon its self-­understanding as a lay organization (or rather an academic lay vanguard) inside the Roman Catholic Church that – analogous to a division of labour – had to deal with secular institutions such as the UN. Based upon this general idea, the early work of Pax Romana in the context of the UN was based upon two further (and contingent) elements. First, its activities were based upon the idea of Catholic Action and Roman Catholic Peace that dominated Catholic Social Thinking in the time between the two World Wars. Second, UN-­ related activities were the consequence of individual career decisions taken by single members of Pax Romana in Geneva and New York City that confronted the General Secretariat – more or less unintentionally – with the work of the UN. Taken together, these distinct elements finally shaped Pax Romana’s early UN-­related activities. In comparison with the CCIA, the archive material in Fribourg suggests that Pax Romana’s concrete influence upon the UN was not as emphatic as in the first case. As far as the debates inside Pax Romana are concerned, we get, however, a totally different picture. Right from the beginning, the people cooperating with the UN were able to link Pax Romana’s activities within the UN context to specific traditions of Franco-­Amer­ican Catholic thought that had, for instance, explicit links to human rights ideas. On this basis, the General Secretariat of Pax Romana actively introduced these ideas into the rank and file of its members, thus establishing initial toeholds for further debates. These references to explicit theological traditions caused a much more constant UN-­related debate on human rights inside Pax Romana than is the case with the CCIA, with its ongoing struggle over the ecumenical basis of its

152   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) approach. Throughout the second phase of Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities, the main concept of the UN in general and human rights in particular stayed more or less intact, without any fundamental critique. Referring to different strands of Roman Catholic theological thinking, the protagonists inside Pax Romana were able to legitimize their UN-­related activities as a decisively Roman Catholic contribution to the international world. At the same time, the period of the 1950s and 1960s was dominated by institutional developments that changed the setting for Pax Romana’s activities considerably. In the documents, these are primarily associated with (1) the increasing activities of the ICO and (2) the establishment of the Holy See inside the UN. On the one hand, the ICOs started to develop particular expertise inside the UN, based upon detailed knowledge about debates and procedures (with Pax Romana being a protagonist as well as a beneficiary of these processes). On the other hand, the Holy See started to increase its own activities in this field, thus questioning the particular expertise of the ICOs. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, these institutional changes formed the basis for a re-­orientation of Pax Romana towards the Roman Catholic authorities as well as towards the UN. On the one hand, Pax Romana became more and more integrated into the ICOs – as opposed to the central Authorities of the Holy See. On the other hand, the ICOs in general started to orient themselves towards the wider NGO community with its increasing emphasis on Civil Society Activism. This two-­fold re-­orientation of Pax Romana was, however, much less dramatic than in the case of the CCIA. In this third phase, Pax Romana underwent a process that can be described as a smooth (though momentous) shift, rather than an abrupt change constructed along the lines of a generation gap. In order to understand these developments, one has to keep in mind that Pax Romana’s UN-­related activities were actually confronted with a very specific dichotomy. The distinction between ICOs and the Holy See re-­introduced the differentiation between NGO and member states to the self-­understanding of Pax Romana – or rather, vice versa, the UN context confronted the ICOs with a situation that formed an already distinct feature of its self-­understanding. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, protagonists inside Pax Romana were able to construct this structural element along the lines of theological innovations associated with liberation theology. They were very eager to link themselves (as well as the organization in general) to new developments in the worldwide Church that helped them to legitimate their own activities. This triggered a general development not too far from the establishment of the CCIA as a human rights-­related commission inside the wider context of the WCC. Under the particular condition of the Roman Catholic Church, Pax Romana included human rights in the very fabric of its self-­understanding, thus shifting the internal borders between the religious and the sacred. Unlike the case of the CCIA, this whole process was, however, embedded into a context characterized by the much stronger central power of the Holy See, which underwent similar processes. This caused processes that were at the same time less conflict-­driven and more dynamic.

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   153 This is now finally the place to link all these very specific, case-­based reflections back to the major theme of the present book. In order to do so, the next two chapters follow a two-­step approach. Chapter 7 will focus on the generalization of the results of the case analyses (first via a comparison of the two cases, and second via a comparison with the wider setting of the RNGO accreditation process). On this basis, Chapter 8 will come back to a more general interpretation of these generalized results.

Notes   1 Hagen, Hermann and Kosch, Wilhelm, Die Studentenverbindungen im katholischen Deutschland, München 1924; Weiß, Josef, Das katholische Farbenstudententum in der Gegenwart, München 1924.  2 The representatives of the catholic students’ organizations that met in Fribourg on 20 July 1921 decided unanimously to found an ‘International Catholic Information and Liaison Office’ that takes as its motto the words PAX ROMANA. The direction of this office is guaranteed by periodic meetings of a Council of Delegates. The above associations are committed to supporting the office morally and materially (translation by K. Lehmann). (Weck, Guillaume de, Pax Romana 1887–1921–1946, Histoire de la Confédération internationale des Étudiants Catholiques, Fribourg 1946, p. 117)  3

Referring back to the best traditions of the Christian past and seeking to respond to the demands of the present age, Pax Romana seeks to support the entire growth of catholic ideals among students – and this means in all parts of academic, intellectual and social life (translation by K. Lehmann). (Ibid., p. 131)

  4 Trisconi, Michela (ed.), Mémoires engagées – 76ième – 50ième Anniversaire Pax Romana – ICMICA, Fribourg 1997; Pax Romana (ed.), The Holy See – Face of Another Globalization, Barcelona 2008; Melady, Thomas P., The Ambassador’s Story – The United States and the Vatican in World Affairs, Huntington 1994.   5 Nell-­Breuning, Oswald von and Schasching, Johannes, Texte der katholischen Soziallehre – Die sozialen Rundschreiben der Päpste und andere kirchliche Dokumente, Köln 2007; Nell-­Breuning, Oswald von, Soziallehre der Kirche – Erläuterungen der lehramtlichen Dokumente, Wien 1977; Autiero, Antonio (ed.), Herausforderung Aggiornamento – Zur Rezeption des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, Altenberge 2000; Casanova, José, ‘Catholic and Muslim Politics in Comparative Perspective’, Taiwan Journal of Democracy 1 (2005), pp. 89–108.   6 Altermatt, Urs and Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Pax Romana 1921–1981 – Gründung und Entwicklung, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1981; Weck, Guillaume de, Pax Romana 1887–1921–1946.   7 Blin, François, Repères pour l’histoire de la Conférence des Organisations Internationales Catholiques (1927–2008), Grand-­Saconnex 2010.   8 This literature is immense. To get a first impression of the most recent debates with direct links to the following analyses, see Linden, Ian, Global Catholicism – Diversity and Change since Vatican II, New York 2009; Klinger, Elmar and Zerfay, Rolf (ed.), Die Kirche der Laien – Eine Weichenstellung des Konzils, Würzburg 1987; Wenzel, Knut, Kleine Geschichte des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, Freiburg im Breisgau 2005; Gabriel, Karl et al. (eds), Die Anerkennung der Religionsfreiheit auf dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil – Texte zur Interpretation eines Lernprozesses, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich.

154   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   9 Directly referring to Roman Catholic activities at the UN (without extensive references to Pax Romana) and thus counterbalancing the Protestant historiography, see Rossi, Joseph S., Uncharted Territory – The Amer­ican Catholic Church at the United Nations, 1946–1972, Washington, DC 2006; Rossi, Joseph S., Amer­ican Catholics and the Formation of the United Nations, Lanham/New York/London 1993. 10 Conférence des Organisations Internationales Catholiques (ed.), Les Catholiques dans la vie internationale, Paris 1957; Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Die internationalen katholischen Organisationen, Aschaffenburg 1972. 11 Fortunately, Pax Romana – ICMICA published a book of autobiographical sketches of some of its members, see Trisconi, Michela (ed.), Mémoires Engagées – 76ième – 50ième Anniversaire Pax Romana – ICMICA, Fribourg 1997. 12 Boxes: PaRo-­FR, Box 28; PaRo-­FR, Box B 1; PaRo-­FR, Box C 11, etc. 13 Box PaRo-­FR, Box B 11 includes the correspondence of Rudi Salat during the Second World War that provides an interesting insight into the life of a German exile in the USA. 14 In the official English translation of the Encyclical ‘Non abbiamo bisogno’: Here in Italy, as in all parts of the world where Catholic Action exists, Catholic Action is true to its solemn and authentic definition. Obeying Our watchful and assiduous instructions (which you, Venerable Brethren, have so largely seconded), it does not wish to be nor can be anything other than ‘the participation and the collaboration of the laity with the Apostolic Hierarchy’. (See, www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-­xi_ enc_29061931_non-­abbiamo-bisogno_en.html, accessed 15 October 2015) 15 Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, ‘Pax Romana: Son Histoire’, in Altermatt, Urs/Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Pax Romana 1921–1981 – Gründung und Entwicklung, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1981, pp. 31–48, here: p. 37. 16 The following document sums up the debates: N.A., Objectives et modifications apportées par les fédératinos au projet de status de l’union mondiale des étudiants catholiques, 26.III.1947 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 3). 17 From 25 to 30 August 1945, a first international meeting was organized in London, focusing on the practical work of Pax Romana, and highlighting the ideal of the apolitical character of its activities. (N.A., Pax Romana Regional Congress, 1.VI.1945 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 31)). 18 Pax Romana aims at serving peace – but by much more humble means, thus by more Christian means. I am convinced that sustainable peace is not an immediate goal but rather the result of work over a long period of time. As has already been observed by Mgr. Seipel at the Congress of Bologne in 1925, this work is the result of the daily operations taking place in the federations themselves. Consequently, Pax Romana intends to be a link between the federations (translation by K. Lehmann). (Gremaud, Joseph, Les 25 and de Pax Romana, 31.VIII.1946 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 1), p. 2) 19

The presence of Pax Romana on the international level stands for the presence of catholic thinking in the neutral sphere (les milieux neutres) and in non-­ Catholic organizations. It is our task to make the marvellous ideas of the moving Christmas Messages of His Holiness Pope Pius XII shine. Without doubt you have all read those messages that constitute the basis of peace. How many people do not know them? And how many deliberately do not want to know them? However, are we not responsible? Have we done everything in our power to disseminate this kind of thinking? With all necessary cautiousness – and with

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   155 the advice of the church authorities – Pax Romana has precisely tried to achieve a lot in this area, especially with regards to those that are not Catholic (translation by K. Lehmann). (Ibid., p. 5) 20 Schneuwly, Joseph, Letter to Dougherty, 27.X.1947 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 3). 21 Ibid. 22 Without any doubt the articles that have be studied above are in no way exhaustive with regards to the subjects that are of interest to Catholics in the field of human rights. Taken the short time that has been allotted to me to familiarize myself with this subject matter, it was literally not possible to do more. [. . .] From a Catholic standpoint, I could rely upon the excellent documentation of Miss Schaefer. In addition, I want to pay tribute to her work as well as to the efforts of the Leagues of Catholic Women in the United States. The declaration on Human Rights drawn up by the ‘National Catholic Welfare Conference’ was also of great help to me. – All of this in no way prevents me from noting that the defence of Catholic interests at the second session of the Commission of Human Rights in Geneva was pure improvisation (translation by K. Lehmann). (Dubois, Marc, Comptes Rendus de la deuxième Session de la Commission des droits de l’Homme, 30.XII.1947 (PaRo-­FR, Box G4), p. 13) 23 The first meeting of the ICO took place from 5 to 6 April 1927 in Fribourg/Switzerland. Its formal foundation was approved by the Holy See on 25 June 1953. 24 However, before we reflect upon the unfortunate state of mind that characterizes some of these interventions, we want to underline the agreement that has been established between the teaching of the church and the rather general text that is here: ’The observance of human rights cannot be completely ensured unless the right conditions for social progress and improved living standards have been established.’ [. . .] The teaching church will keep on advising, regulating, and setting out the steps that need to be taken, as long as Catholic Action will invite them to carry with them the worries of the world and to work for its salvation by means of the irradiation of truth and the supernatural zeal in humankind. The basic idea that international bodies will take care of human rights, and more profoundly of man himself, can take its place in a mindset with regards to a world in which Christianity is the best guardian of prosperity, harmony and happiness (translation by K. Lehmann). (Dubois, Marc, Les travaux de la Commission des Droits de l’homme des Nations Unies et la doctrine catholique (Circulaire no 4 pour la Conférence des Présidents), 7.1.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box H 4 1), pp. 12 and 15) 25 And this is far from being an isolated case: the Pax Romana archives include further comments – e.g. published by the Association des Intellectuels Romains Catholiques and by the Catholic Association for International Peace – that followed a similar line of thought (PaRo-­Fr, Box G 4). 26 Gilson, Etienne, ‘Our Task in the New Christendom’, in Pax Romana 1,4 (1947), p. 1. It is relatively easy to present similar quotations. An article by Ramon Sugranyes de Franch expands on this idea even further, linking human rights – first – to the recent history of Catholicism: Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, ‘Sens chrétien d’une Déclaration des droits de l’homme’, in Pax Romana 2, 3 (1948), p. 3. In the following years, authors such as the French philosopher Jacques Maritain (Maritain, Jacques, ‘Das Naturrecht und die Menschenrechte’, Pax Romana 5, 2 (1951), p. 1) or the Polish historian Oskar Halecki (Halecki, Oskar, ‘La Mission de l’Europe’, in Pax Romana 7, 4 (1953), p. 2) were among the contributors to the journal, thus helping to work out the details of Pax Romana’s approach to human rights.

156   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) 27 Dougherty, James E., Letter to White, 2.II.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 3). 28 Schneuwly, Joseph, Letter to Dougherty, 28.V.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 3). 29 Schneuwly, Joseph, Letter to Dougherty, 7.VII.1948 (PARO-­FR, Box I 3). 30 Dubois, Marc, Le statut du Nations Unies consultatif au Conseil Économique et Social et les organisations internationales non-­governementales, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 5 1), pp. 4–6. – Interestingly Dubois lists the Ligue internationale des Droits de l’Homme and the Organisation internationale des Droits de l’Homme as ‘anti-­religious’. 31 In total, out of 65 NGOs with consultative status – 1 out of 8 is in category (a), 2 out of 54 are in category (b), and 0 out of 3 is in category (c). This adds up to 3 Catholic NGOs out of 65 or 4.61%. Consequently, the Conference wonders whether it would be appropriate to suggest to other international Catholic organizations that represent one of the types of activities in this statistic, to take an application for consultative status into consideration (translation by K. Lehmann). (Dubois, Marc, Le statut du Nations Unies consultatif au Conseil Économique et Social et les organisations internationales non-­governementales, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 5 1), p. 6) 32

33

34

The protestant pastors were the ones that spoke most clearly about God. For me it really was a moving moment to listen to the statement of pastor Eastman [from the CCIA] who clearly underlined – during the general discussion on human rights – their dependence on God – in an atmosphere of great respect. [. . .] The most positive factor was the excellent collaboration that existed between all the catholic delegates before and during the conference. The documents that had been devised by R.P. Dubois and the preparatory sessions have certainly been of very great help. The Catholics have also given the impression of a well-­prepared group (translation by K. Lehmann). (Salat, Rudi, Quelques idées personnelles sur les réunions des organisations non-­ gouvernementales, tenues à Genève, au mois de mai 1948 sous les auspices des Nations-­Unies, 6.VI.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1), pp. 1f.) The text of this memo will be widely disseminated and sent to all our members and friends. On the other hand, the assembly holds that the question of human rights is too important to limit ourselves to work on an official text, in which case – for reasons of expedience – we want to limit ourselves to proposals of some indispensable modifications. This is why the assembly has started to work on a more profound study of the question [of human rights] and has laid the groundwork for a declaration on human rights that is entirely inspired by Christian principles (translation by K. Lehmann). (Mouvement International des Intellectuels Catholiques (ed.), Proces – Verbal de la IIe Assemblée Plenière, St Edmund’s College, Ware, 1948 (N.D., PaRo-­Fr, Box B 3), pp. 18f.) As far as human rights are concerned, I have drafted a memo that follows the instructions I have received from the assembly, and that I already forwarded a few days ago to the President of the Economic and Social Council [ECOSOC]. With regards to the specific issue of religious freedom, I have consulted our Ecclesiastical Assistant as well as the eminent theologian Abbé [Charles] Journet. In agreement with those two, I have proposed a formulation that appears satisfactory to me. Thereafter, I received a note from Cassano, hinting towards the fact that someone he had consulted in high places had suggested a formulation that utterly corresponds with the formulation in my memo: saying that for us Catholics the

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   157 freedom of conscience refers only to the State but not at all to God and His Church (translation by K. Lehmann). (Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Letter to Veronese, 9.IX.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 2), p. 1) 35 N.A., Rencontre Internationale sur les Droits de l’Homme en Allemagne, N.D. (PaRo­FR, Box E 6 1). 36 The main purpose [of this meeting] is to make human rights and the concerns of UNECSO known to as many academic circles in Germany as possible. We want to really arouse interest in those problems and to have a look at the Catholic positions in this area. On this account, we want to bring together representatives from all professions – hence legal experts, medical doctors, sociologists, politicians, journalists etc. and not only academics and experts that work in this field (translation by K. Lehmann). (Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Letter to Wolff, 3.II.1951 (PaRo-­FR, Box C 5 1), p. 1) 37 Moch, Georg, Letter to Sugranyes de Franch, 13.VI.1951 (PaRo-­FR, Box C 5 1). 38 With satisfaction, the participants of the seminar have noted the progress that has so far been made with regards to the safeguarding of human rights. Conscious of the obligations that arise for them from their beliefs and from brotherly love, the catholic intellectuals that have come to Limburg from different European and Amer­ican countries wish to bring a positive contribution to the ongoing negotiations by adopting the following resolution: 1.) [. . .] the attention to the right to life is based on nature and therefore comes from God [. . .] 2.) [. . .] nothing may renounce the protection [of property] – neither individual property rights nor the right for compensation in the case of expropriation [. . .] 3.) [. . .] the right to participate in the nomination and the control of state leadership. In the case of serious violation of human rights the right of resistance is legitimate [. . .] 4.)  [. . .] the protection of the right to life [. . .] 5.) [. . .] the protection against extermination, understood in the sense of the genocide convention [. . .] (translation by K. Lehmann) (N.A., Rencontre Internationale sur les Droits de l’Homme en Allemagne, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1), p. 2) 39 Donovan, George F., The Limburg Declarations, in: Pax Romana 5, 6 (1951), p. 3. 40 The establishment of an intensive international life with regards to questions that are of fundamental interest to the Christian world, asks all Catholics to become active in fields that have so far been little known. Whether one likes it or not, ­official international organizations gain more and more importance and very ­frequently impose their decisions or their points of view – even onto sovereign states. It is therefore essential that all Catholics shall ensure that these decisions will be inspired by Christian principles or that they at least do not contradict [those principles]; and that they [the Catholics] act energetically and in an efficient manner in those instances when Christian ideals are at stake (translation by K. Lehmann). (Centre d’Information Catholique (ed.), Centre d’Information Catholique des Organisations Internationales Catholiques, Genève, N.D. (PaRo-­Fr, Box H 4 1), p. 2)

158   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) 41 Blin, François, Repères pour l’histoire de la Conférence des Organisations Internationales Catholiques (1927–2008), Grand-­Saconnex 2010, p. 47. 42 ITS CREATION: The ‘Fondation Pie XII’ has been set up by the decision of His Holiness Pope Pius XII who approved the Statutes on 28 October 1953 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 16 décembre 1953, T.XLY p. 821). It is situated in the Vatican City State and enjoys the status of a legal personality. ITS AIMS: The essential goal of the foundation is to support and promote the international Catholic organizations of the Apostolate of the Laity. To this end, the foundation administers its initial heritage as well as the property that has been given to it (cf. art. II of the statutes) (translation by K. Lehmann, underline and capital text in original). (N.A., Fondation Pie XII, N.D., (PaRo-­FR, Box E 5 1), p. 1) 43

The NGO conference on discrimination has already confronted me with quite a few challenges. Personally, I believe that this conference will be a huge fair, where everybody will display different cases of discrimination and from which nothing positive will come. Here, you will find Catholics who talk about religious persecution (and rightfully so!); Protestants who talk about alleged persecutions in Colombia, Spain and elsewhere; Communists who talk about the Negros [sic] in the United States, about Moroccans, Tunisians, and about other types of persecutions. In my opinion, we have to be very careful with regards to the participation of Pax Romana in this conference (translation by K. Lehmann). (Sugranye de Franch, Ramon, Letter to Charpentier, 12.I.1955 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 2))

44 Published by the UN as Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/LK.92/Add.15 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). 45 We confirm a number of typical cases we have chosen as examples either of open persecution or of blatant discrimination against the Catholic Church. We do not – alas! – pretend to have exhausted this subject. It is our aim to bring these cases to the kind attention of the Rapporteur and to suggest the broad lines along which he could orient his search (translation by K. Lehmann). (Pax Romana (ed.), ‘Etudes des mesures discriminatoires dans le domaine de la liberté de religion et des pratiques religieuses’, 26.V.1956 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1), p. 3) 46 The respective documents can be found in the Boxes: PaRo-­FR, Box H 5 1 and Box E 5 1. 47 The birth of several of our groups of European intellectuals takes place in a period of time [. . .] when a new concept of the role of the church in the realm of culture is emerging. [. . .] This is the result of a new awareness of the fact that a cultural unity of the world that is based upon the unity of the Christian faith – such as it might have existed in the European Middle Ages – is nowadays but a dream that is less feasible than ever. [. . .] Today the church is always in a state of mission, because she has to be present in all human societies without, however, leading even one of those societies. [. . .] In this church in mission, the intellectuals have a significant role to play, since they often form the conscience of social momentum (translation by K. Lehmann). (Mouvement International des Intellectuels Catholiques/MIIC (ed.), Rapport pour les commissions du programme de l’Assemblée de Fribourg, VI.1961 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1 1), pp. 1f.)

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   159 48

49

Thanks to its special representatives to official international bodies, Pax Romana was in the position to exert influence on these organisations as well as on NGOs on the international level (this is inter alia demonstrated by the fact the Mr Szmitkowski was recently elected vice-­president of the NGO Committee). It nevertheless seems to be necessary that the movement, in close cooperation with its national federations, tries to develop a programme for committed Catholics in official international institutions that find themselves frequently concentrated in cities such as Paris, Geneva, Brussels, Luxembourg, and New York (translation by K. Lehmann). (Mouvement International des Intellectuels Catholiques/MIIC (ed.), Rapport pour les commissions du programme de l’Assemblée de Fribourg, VI.1961 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1 1), p. 10) The unity of mankind is given by origin, nature, and the request to eventually become one in Christ. This Christian insight has to provide us with the larger concept and stronger confidence [. . .]. The world is getting smaller and smaller and the great cultures of the world that are still alive are moving closer and closer. Wouldn’t it be possible that – under these conditions – the Catholic school provides us with a forward-­looking example for international understanding? (translation by K. Lehmann). (König, Franz, Die Aufgaben des katholischen Akademikers in der Welt und für die Einheit der Kirche in der Welt, 27.VII.1961 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1 1))

50 Unfortunately, the archives contain neither detailed minutes of the meeting nor any documents on the preparation of the conference. In other words, they provide us almost exclusively with the point of view of the protagonists inside Pax Romana. 51 As far as the archives in Fribourg are concerned, the representatives in Geneva seem to have been less productive. Most of them were lawyers. 52 See: PaRo-­FR, Boxes H 5 1; H 5; and E 6 1. 53 The Holy See Mission to the UN in Geneva opened five years later. In 1969 Henri de Riedmatten became the first Permanent Observer in Geneva (up to 1972). 54 Kelly, Raymond, F., Open Letter of the Pax Romana Office for UN Affairs, Christmas 1964 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). 55 Pope Paul VI, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 4.X.1965 (PaRo-­Fr, Box E 6 1). 56 Melady, Thomas, Memorandum, 19.X.1965 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). 57 See Resolution A/RES/1285 (XIII) of the General Assembly. 58 See Resolution A/RES/2081 (XX) of the General Assembly. 59 Those debates are primarily to be found in: PaRo-­FR. Box G 4. 60 Melady, Thomas P., Letter to Dembinski and Nicolai, 3.XI.1967 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 5 1), capitals in original. 61 In the end, Melady rather focuses on the contribution to a book entitled ‘The Right to be Educated’. Interestingly enough the first suggestion for the title was: ‘The Human Right to be educated’ – Drinan, Robert F. (ed.), The Right to be Educated Studies – To ­Commemorate the Twentieth Anniversary of the Adoption by the United Nations of the ­Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, Washington, DC 1968. 62 To be found in a wide range of different boxes: Box G 4, Box A 3 3, and Box E 5 1 63 Pope Paul VI sent an official message to the International Conference on Human Rights that was taking place in April and May 1968 (in Teheran) and the Holy See was present at the conference with a Delegation lead by Rev. Hesburgh (long-­time Rector of Notre Dame University, Indiana). 64 Pax Romana’s General Secratariat, Reply to a Questionnaire for Non-­governmental Organizations on Activities for the International Year For Human Rights, N.D. (PaRo­FR, Box I 5 1).

160   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) 65 On this question, the General-­Secretariat responded that they had never received any funding from the US government. Dembinski, Ludwig/Nikolai, Jürgen, Answers to the Questionnaire, 29.IV.1968 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 5 1). 66 Since the Second Vatican Council, the vertical authority structure [pyramide autoritaire] of the Church is about to transform itself into a pluricentric structure (with an increased emphasis given to the local Churches) that is open towards the world, pluralist, democratic and no longer clerical. Since today there actually exists the liberty to discuss all doctrinal aspects and all the problems of the Church; the possibility of dialogue on all levels of the Church, between the hierarchy and the laity; the increasing democratization of the ecclesiastic structures; the more and more active participation of the laity with regards to collective decision making on all levels – the ICO [International Catholic Organizations] have lost a large part of their old functions. This has necessarily produced a crisis of the Catholic organizations, difficulties in their internal functions, and uncertainty with regards to their tasks inside the Church and inside society (translation by K. Lehmann). (Dembinski, Ludwig, La Situation actuelle et les perspectives d’avenir de Pax Romana – MIIC, 24.IX.1970 (PaRo-­FR, Box A 3 4), p. 2) 67 In retrospect he formulated even more strongly: When the Council included in the various Council documents many of the ideas for which Pax Romana was standing, it was for the Movement a vindication. [. . .] But, in this situation, it had to be asked what should be the specific role and functions to be played in the future by the traditional International Catholic Organisations (ICOs), and particularly Pax Romana. As a matter of fact, one could wonder whether with the opening of the Church to the laity there would still be a need for organisations to act as representatives or intermediaries between lay Catholics and the hierarchy. (Dembinski, Ludwig, ‘The General Secretary “Who Came in from the Cold” . . .’, in Trisconi, Michela (ed.), Mémoires Engagées – 76e–50e Anniversaire Pax Romana ICMICA/MIIC, Fribourg 1997, pp. 89–97, here: p. 96). 68

For some, it might be an idle endeavour to speak nowadays of international Catholic organizations and to even dedicate an entire volume of this series to them. The three notions ‘organizations’, ‘international’, and ‘catholic’, are nowadays evoking a crisis situation. They are all subject to more or less rigorous scrutiny (translation by K. Lehmann). (Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Die internationale (Der Christ in der Welt))

69 It was first and foremost the ICMICA branch of Pax Romana that focused upon the following issues: Science et technique – facteurs de libération et d’oppression, Education et Culture – facteurs de libération et d’oppression, and: Les systèmes politiques – facteurs de libération de l’homme. [Pax Romana, Programme General, 22.V.1971 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1)]. 70 As soon as one finds oneself confronted with injustice, one has to address and nourish human and Christian responsibility. In order to find a strategy that helps to put injustice behind us, it is necessary to look for reliable information [. . . and] to make an effort for sympathetic understanding. [. . .] In cooperation with Christian or other organizations, PAX ROMANA has a particular responsibility in this field (translation by K. Lehmann, capitals in original). (International Catholic Movement of Intellectual and Cultural Affairs, Journées d’études de la 21 Assemblée Plénière du MIIC, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1), p. 13)

Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS)   161 71 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, Teologia de la liberación, Perspectival, Lima 1971. (the English version published by Maryknoll 1973). 72 My friends and my brothers: Look at whatever human group, from whatever country, of whatever race or religion. It is possible and easy to discover some people among them – an [Abrahamic] minority – that in no way judge themselves as being better, nor greater, nor more intelligent than the others. They rather are marked by God himself. They are born for the others, to devote themselves, to give themselves without calculation or measure. [. . .] If you ask the question why I call this minority Abrahamic, I want to remind you that – by following the example of Abraham – they have to hope against all hope. [. . .] Obviously this name will change among the races, the countries, and the religions. Under a great variety of names, these minorities – invisibly put together by two liberating sisters – are fortunately already in existence. Do you want a key example? I invite you to greet the jubilee of an Abrahamic minority that is all around the world known for its work under the name of Pax Romana! (translation by K. Lehmann). (Câmara, Hélder, Homme, veux-­tu être libre?, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1), p. 6) 73

74

As is noted in the reports on the numerous investigations that have been carried out by our International Movement of Catholic Jurists (i.e. a movement that depends on the General Secretariat of Pax Romana and undertook its latest mission some days ago in Brazil), the practice of violence and torture has lost in certain countries its appearance and alibi of operations that are described as being of a limited nature – allegedly required by reasons of immediate security or of evidence collection. They are about to transform into an instrument of terror used against the populations to break even the slightest efforts of the opposition. Our Movement, in its fight for the defence of human rights, is stimulated and has always been stimulated by nothing but the principles of the Gospel. That is why it  is up to us – as Christians and as international Catholic organizations – to  unequivocally denounce the manipulation and the diversion of faith and Catholic ideals that have been undertaken to justify the unjustifiable (translation by K. Lehmann). (Statement by Pax Romana, 33rd Session of the Commission of Human Rights (7.II.1977–11.III.1977) (PaRo-­FR, Box E 3)) As I promised at our last meeting, I am hereby attaching the text of different Pax Romana-­interventions of the 33rd session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. Actually we have only intervened two times, [. . .] the second intervention was presented by an Argentinian, Dr Mattarollo, who gave a well founded and thoughtful testimony on the situation in his country. [. . .] The representative of Chile, as indeed the representative of Argentina, presented some rather sharp words against Pax Romana. I can well understand that they did not like our interventions (translation by K. Lehmann). (Sottas, Eric, Letter to Luoni, 18.III.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 3))

75 Sottas, Eric, Letter to the Presidents and Secretary Generals of Amnesty International, the Ligue internationale des Droits de l’Homme, and the Societé Anti-­esclavagiste, 10.VI.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6). 76 Sottas, Eric, Letter to Waldheim, 10.VI.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6). 77 On the other hand, we have organized observer missions in Argentina and we have intervened at the Commission on Human Rights exactly in order to seek the assurance from this government to respect the fundamental rights of the human

162   Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) person. This intervention has earned us sharp criticism in the press in Buenos Aires and quite some inconveniences due to the fact that the Argentinian government does not seem to accept any criticism of the most repressive policy they are pursuing (translation by K. Lehmann). (Sottas, Eric, Letter to Silvio Lucci, 25.XI.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6))

7 Worldwide trend towards activism

As has been outlined in the last paragraph of Chapter 6, this is finally the place to work towards a generalization of the outcomes of the two case analyses, in order to use those outcomes for the enhancement of more abstract theoretical debates. Guided by the basic idea of presenting an inverse approach to the resurgence debates, and to look into the black box of RNGO activities in the context of the UN, the present chapter will try to interpret the very detailed analyses of UN- and human rights-­related activities inside Pax Romana and the CCIA in a more general way. Following this line of thought, the next sections embark upon a process that is based on a systematic two-­step comparison. Section 7.1 will start with the comparison of the two cases, highlighting three phases of one joint development. Section 7.2 will expand these findings by linking the results of the case comparison to the more general developments of the RNGO community. Based upon this second layer of comparison, section 7.3 will finally be able to highlight the outcomes of these considerations by – at the same time – reducing and expanding the scope of the discussion.

7.1  Bringing the case analyses together In order to adequately assess the significance of the following considerations, one needs to come back to a short characterization of the two cases that highlights the very specific religious traditions and organizational contexts they are affiliated with. As has already been mentioned before, Pax Romana was formally established in 1921 as an umbrella organization to bring together Roman Catholic student organizations from all over the world. From this basis, it developed into one of the first Roman Catholic lay organizations to cooperate with the UN, and finally to establish itself among the most active International Catholic Organizations (ICO). In comparison, the CCIA can be characterized as a specialized commission of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and – in the beginning – the International Missionary Council (IMC). Consisting of a Board of Commissioners as well as a set of long-­serving officers, the CCIA was formed to represent these two major Protestant (and, later on, also Orthodox) umbrella organizations in the context of international relations and the UN.

164   Worldwide trend towards activism Despite these distinct backgrounds, it must not, however, be forgotten that the two cases share a number of joint characteristics. First of all, they both construct themselves as being Christian, thus being part of the majority of the first RNGOs that gained access to the UN during the 1940s and 1950s. Second, the two cases established their organizational structures during the early twentieth century, in this respect as peers to quite a number of other religiously affiliated organizations as well as the League of Nations and the UN. Third, from the very beginning, Pax Romana and the CCIA have been dominated by an explicitly global outlook that shaped their organizational structures as well as their internal discourses. And finally, the protagonists inside both cases perceived themselves as being particularly suited to work in a setting they interpreted as political and secular. So, with regard to Julia Berger’s classification (presented in Chapter 2), the two cases differ in terms of their religious dimension (or to be more precise: with regard to their Christian confession). They are, however, quite close to each other as far as their organizational dimension is concerned (both have a formal organizational structure that represents their worldwide agenda). In terms of the strategic dimension, the general mission of Pax Romana set out to be more specific (with the focus upon university students and education) than the mission of the CCIA. Throughout the first two decades of their UN-­related activities, the agenda of both organizations became, however, increasingly more broad – covering a wide field of UN-­related topics. And the same is true with regard to the service dimension. Over time, both cases developed a strong service-­orientation with a global outlook. To better understand these similarities and differences, the following sections will look more closely at different steps of UN-­related activities in the two cases. Actually, it is precisely this overall development that will be spelled out in greater detail by the following comparison. Highlighting the UN and the human rights discourse, the comparison of the two cases will underline three distinct phases that start from first attempts inside Pax Romana and the CCIA to approach the world of international politics. 7.1.1  Approaching the world of international politics To identify the major characteristics of this first phase, it is important to keep in mind that the time period immediately after the end of World War  II was characterized by rapid socio-­cultural changes – in terms of political power as well as economic innovation, etc. Relating to the respective sections of Chapter 4, it can be argued that the second half of the 1940s was dominated by a reconfiguration of global discourses such as, for example, the discourse of worldwide peace, universal human rights, or bloc confrontation. At the same time, this period was characterized by the establishment of new global organizations such as the UN, their specialized agencies, and a whole set of newly emerging international NGOs. Pax Romana, as well as the CCIA, has been very much part of this over-­all development. In the case of Pax Romana, the commitment to the UN was based

Worldwide trend towards activism   165 upon the idea of a worldwide Catholic lay vanguard that saw one of its major tasks as presenting the ideals of Roman Catholicism to emerging world organizations. In the case of the CCIA, the commitment to the UN was linked to the widely shared ideal inside the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the International Missionary Council (IMC) to form religious counterparts to the UN in order to promote worldwide Christendom. In both cases the respective protagonists perceived the UN as a newly emerging secular context in which the RNGOs had to be active. These rather similar constructions of the UN and international relations inside the cases formed the starting point for an increasing level of cooperation with the UN as well as other Protestant and Catholic NGOs that finally confronted the two RNGOs not only with new organizational structures, but also with a new set of discourses. As has been shown in the respective sections of the case analyses, Pax Romana’s early engagement with human rights was strongly influenced by rather tentative attempts to deal with the emerging human rights discourse. In the beginning, it was dominated by the need to gather basic information and then by attempts to build alliances with other Catholic NGOs in order to influence ongoing debates. And similar processes can be observed in the case of the CCIA. Even though its first representatives came from an Anglo-­Amer­ican background that looked back upon a rather long and positive attitude to the human rights discourse, it had to invest quite a lot of effort in order to participate in debates at the UN. This increasing cooperation is documented in the publication of the first major statements of the two cases, which were characterized by two common features. First, the human rights discourse inside both cases was highly interconnected with the very idea of the UN. Despite their distinct sources, the early human rights-­related documents of Pax Romana as well as the CCIA identified human rights with the UN in general and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in particular. Second, even though the formation of the UN and the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were among the top news stories of the 1940s, the protagonists inside the two cases perceived them as highly specialized topics that needed to be addressed by people with the respective expertise. Consequently, the first major documents on the UN and human rights (that formed the central points of reference for subsequent activities) were the results of expert discourses rather than widely conducted debates. As far as the present analyses are concerned, this situation is of twofold significance. First of all, it is interesting to see that the early human rights discourse inside the two cases was highly ambivalent. On the one hand, they both drew on distinct theological sources. The work of the CCIA was primarily based upon early stages of Niebuhrian theology and the early activities of Pax Romana were strongly influenced by the approaches of theologians such as Jacques Maritain. On the other hand, they were open to input from the UN. In terms of their technical language as well as with regard to their general ideas and convictions, both cases were highly indebted to debates at the UN. In addition, the early history of the cases suggests that the first protagonists of their UN-­related activities were not at all identical with the overall set-­up of their

166   Worldwide trend towards activism leading figures. Even inside the WCC headquarters at Geneva, early CCIA officers seemed to be supported by a general understanding, without, however, representing the mainstream at the General Secretariat. And the same was true for Pax Romana. Due to financial problems as well as the strong need for voluntary commitment, it was actually quite difficult to find Pax Romana-­related experts that were willing and able to work on these very specific topics discussed at the UN. Having said all this, the comparison of the two cases so far helps to characterize the first phase in the following way: right from the start, the cases were dominated by a specific self-­understanding that caused their internal protagonists to approach the UN almost immediately after its foundation. This decision confronted an emerging group of experts with a set of organizational structures and discourses that seemed to be relatively new to the majority of the leading figures inside Pax Romana and the CCIA. On the practical level, this led to the establishment of a rather small group of experts that was cooperating with national diplomats and UN civil servants to develop the position of the respective organizations in this new situation. As far as the establishment of discourses is concerned, these experts gained such a position that they were almost immediately able to dominate the publication of major documents that commented on debates inside the UN while at the same time introducing UN- and human rights-­related discourses to the two cases. This initial constellation was, however, a rather fragile one. Around the turn from the 1940s to the 1950s, an increasingly complex set of experts was moving into the UN context. This triggered the first major shift in the UN-­related activities of the two cases. 7.1.2  Moving into the UN context With regard to the analyses at hand, the construction of the so-­called Krishnaswami Study on Religious Freedom (from 1956 to 1960) probably is the best example to use in order to understand the changes that dominated this second phase. The case analyses have made it quite clear that – at the beginning – the UN experts of Pax Romana and the CCIA approached this study rather reluctantly, perceiving it as nothing but a minor enterprise on the fringes of their contributions to core debates inside the UN. Throughout the second half of the 1950s, however, this initial assessment changed considerably. In both cases, the protagonists of UN-­related activities started to see the study no longer as a vehicle for fighting for the concept of human rights and their respective organizations, but rather as a more specific tool for consolidating human rights thinking in general. This overall change actually documents two developments that happened almost simultaneously and without being intended by the initial actors inside Pax Romana and the CCIA. On the one hand, it illustrates the fact that the UN entered into a phase of much more technical discussions (inter alia dominated by the confrontation of the Cold War) and that these discussions very much relied upon intensified cooperation with NGO experts – including protagonists inside the two cases. On the other hand, the change can be linked to the observation that UN experts followed this increasing specialization while – at the same

Worldwide trend towards activism   167 time – being confronted with new demands and developments inside their own organizations. In other words, the 1950s witnessed a fundamental shift of the role of NGOs inside the UN context that affected the two cases considerably. To further characterize this shift, it is helpful to distinguish the organizational aspect from the discourse aspect. On the level of organizational structure, this shift actually coincided with the establishment of new centres for cooperation with the UN as a particular aspect of international relations. In the case of the CCIA, international relations increasingly became a part of the overall set-­up, with other sections of the WCC developing more and more interest in this kind of work. In the course of this process, the CCIA developed into an expert commission that specialized in formal cooperation with the UN (or rather international relations in general). In the case of Pax Romana, initial activities (dominated by a number of freelance experts linked to Pax Romana’s General Secretariat in Fribourg) changed with the activities of the newly founded Observer Mission of the Holy See, which forced Pax Romana’s representatives (together with the representatives of other ICOs) to find a new position. As far as the main discourses are concerned, this second phase was dominated by the reframing of ambivalences that were already present during the first years of the cases’ UN-­related activities (with some of the opposing tendencies actually growing stronger). With regard to the CCIA, it can be argued that its officers were confronted with quite a number of discussions on the ‘ecumenical basis’ of human rights and religious freedom standing for wider attempts to formulate an ecumenical approach to human rights that finally proved to be unsuccessful. Inside Pax Romana, the respective experts primarily tried to relate their activities to the new traditions of Roman Catholic social thinking that were prominently linked to debates at the Second Vatican Council. This led to the reframing of their previous position on human rights in order to make it more accessible inside the Roman Catholic Church. In the end, this second phase can be described as an indispensable time of transition inside the two cases that was – to a large degree – dominated by the unintended consequences of the initial decision to cooperate with the UN. On the one hand, traditional UN-­related experts were, during this phase, confronted with an augmenting interest for international relations in general and human rights in particular that provided them with an increasing prominence inside their respective organizations. On the other hand, this wider interest weakened their own position in as far as it forced them to focus almost exclusively on the UN while a much wider approach to international relations was in the making. During the following years, this transition finally triggered the integration of a new approach that started to dominate UN- and human rights-­related discourses from the late 1960s onwards. 7.1.3  Integrating a new approach From the point of view of early UN and human rights experts in the two cases, this third phase was constructed along the lines of a generational clash. Inside

168   Worldwide trend towards activism the CCIA, sources describe the developments of the late 1960s and early 1970s as a transformation from a first to a second generation of CCIA officers that was burdened with conflicts – first about the distribution of power inside the WCC, and second about the very concept of human rights and the practical means to adequately implement these rights. As far as Pax Romana is concerned, the internal documents reflect a similar conflict – even though less obvious or at least less dramatic. The controversy around the role of Edward Kirchner in New York City can be interpreted as a debate about professional standards in the UN context. A little bit later, Tadeuz Szmitkowski as well as Eileen Egan, very outspokenly presented a new approach to the UN that identified it with the global public and gained more and more momentum throughout the 1960s. However, these individual clashes go beyond personal animosities. They actually stand for four more fundamental changes that started to dominate the UN-­ related activities of the cases during this third phase. On the level of the construction of discourses, they stand – first – for a shift from the first towards the second and third generation of human rights that were increasingly gaining significance in the wider context of both cases. This shift coincided – second – with changes in the construction of the UN. The analyses show that the initial link between the discourse on the UN and the discourse on human rights – that dominated the cases during the initial two decades – was losing significance, while at the same time the human rights discourse became increasingly related to the general self-­understanding of the cases. In other words, during this third phase, the human rights discourse became an integral basis for debates inside the two cases. And once again, these developments are embedded in changes within the organizational structure. As far as this level is concerned, the final phase included in the two case analyses can – third – be characterized by an increasing link between UN- and human rights-­related activities and what the protagonists at the time started to describe as the NGO community. At the same time, the UN-­related activities of the two cases moved – fourth – away from the UN as their major point of reference. The very notion of the NGO became more and more independent from the formal status inside the UN and developed towards the wider understanding that characterizes the concept today. To put this more generally: this third phase saw the establishment of a totally new set-­up of UN- and human rights-­related discourse inside both cases. Still using labels such as human rights or the UN, a new group of experts put forward a new construction of these discourses that inter alia integrated human rights into the much wider self-­understanding of Pax Romana and the CCIA. The analyses show how human rights became – in terms of discourse as well as structure – an integral aspect of the self-­understanding of the WCC and the Roman Catholic Church in general (while at the same time losing its former link to the UN), and how this self-­understanding was transformed into public action. And these developments coincided with a fundamental transformation in the constructions of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ inside the organizations. Once again, the question of human rights is a good example. In both cases, the construction of human rights changed from (1) a subject matter that was primarily

Worldwide trend towards activism   169 linked to the ‘secular UN’ and taken care of by a small group of internal experts into (2) an idea that was interpreted as a constitutive aspect of the construction of the overall identity of the two cases and under the supervision of its leading personnel. In other words, during this phase human rights really became an integral aspect of the two cases. So, in the end these developments – even though following different trajectories – finally triggered a general transition in the construction of human rights and UN activities. This transition can be characterized as a shift from Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism. 7.1.4  From Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism On a general level, the concepts of Church Diplomacy and Civil Society Activism can be seen as ideal types that are based upon the characterization of the starting-­point as well as the end point of the developments that have so far been described. Relying upon detailed empirical analyses of developments inside the two cases, as well as a comparison of the two cases, they condense the logic behind their UN- and human rights-­related activities in a way that underlines the rationale of the respective protagonists. In this sense, the starting-­point of the UN related activities of the two cases can be characterized with regard to the leading role played by a group of experts during the 1940s and 1950s. These experts can be characterized as ‘Church Diplomats’ in as far as they tried to participate in all the major UN meetings, to cooperate primarily with the members of the diplomatic corps, and to influence UN policies ‘behind the scenes’ (rather than relying on public statements or media coverage). In addition, they worked very hard towards the establishment of a formal position on human rights inside Pax Romana and the CCIA in order to be able to present this position to their UN counterparts, and to influence debates inside the UN. In doing so, the Church Diplomats were rather isolated within their own organizations, relying on the power of official statements rather than individual commitment. Around a decade later, this initial approach was, however, replaced by the totally different rationale of ‘Civil Society Activism’ that started to dominate the UN-­related activities of the cases from the 1960s onwards. The respective changes become most obvious with regard to the establishment of the Holy See’s Permanent Observer, taking over the diplomatic role and forcing Pax Romana’s representatives to change their approach almost immediately. As far as the CCIA is concerned, the controversies around the 1966 World Conference on Church and Society and the new role of Eugene Carson Blake in international relations stand for similar developments. A new set of experts became more and more integrated in what they themselves described as the NGO community, and they began to use this community to approach a worldwide public. If the previous interpretations are correct, this development from Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism goes beyond the establishment of a new set of experts. It highlights an integral change in the overall development of the

170   Worldwide trend towards activism self-­understanding of the two cases. In the beginning, ‘the Church’ – following either the wide reading of this concept put forward by the WCC or based upon the much more restricted understanding in Roman Catholicism – formed the main point of reference for the UN- and human rights-­related activities of the two cases. Later on, however, the self-­understanding of the RNGOs became more and more linked to what they described as the wider public of the NGO community. The two cases began to develop into NGOs in a more general sense – first with regard to their formal role in the context of the UN and second with regard to the construction of the UN- and human rights-­related discourses within both cases. In the context of the present analyses, this observation is of twofold significance. On the one hand, the idea of a development from Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism helps us to understand changes in the way the UN was constructed within the cases. At the beginning it was perceived as a secular context of worldwide significance one needs to be active in. Later on it was constructed as one point of reference one tries to influence together with other NGOs. On the other hand, this new orientation can be interpreted as a reconstruction of the human rights discourse inside the RNGOs, starting as an external concept linked to the UN, and later on developing into a concept integrated into the overall set-­up of the cases. In order to fully assess the wider consequences of these developments, it is necessary to link the results of the case analyses to the more general RNGO developments within the UN context that have already been described in Chapter 4 of this book.

7.2  Comparing to a wider context Methodologically speaking, the following section forms the second step in the process of generalizing the results of the case analyses. Starting from the comparison of the two cases above, it will confront the results of this comparison with the wider context of the RNGO accreditation process – and vice versa. In doing so, this section is not only the place to highlight a number of developments beyond the Christian NGOs. The following considerations will also contribute to a tentative enhancement of the time frame of the preceding analyses – expanding the research results towards the present-­day situation. As spelled out in Chapter 3, this second step in the generalization process is, however, confronted with a number of very specific challenges. Most importantly, one has to keep in mind that the general accreditation process of the RNGOs was (and still is) a complex one that requires a threefold differentiation – first with regard to religious traditions, second in terms of their social structure, and finally in relation to the primary agenda of the RNGOs. In other words, the following references to the accreditation process underline – on the one hand – the complexity of the developments in question, thus systematically highlighting the limits of the single case analyses. On the other hand, however, they help to specify the trends of the case analyses by imposing wider comparisons.

Worldwide trend towards activism   171 Keeping this specific constellation in mind, the following paragraphs will present a two-­step argument. First, they underline a certain degree of simultaneity between (1) changes inside the RNGOs and (2) changes in the overall accreditation process. Second, they highlight one joint feature of these processes – the specific milieus the respective actors are coming from. 7.2.1  Gaining more and more momentum To fully understand the wider significance of the case analyses, it is first of all necessary to link those results to the more general developments of the RNGO community. In this regard, Chapter 4 has shown the extent to which the late 1960s and the early 1970s were characterized by an augmenting dynamization of the accreditation process. In terms of formal numbers, this decade saw an extensive increase in the number of RNGOs. At the same time, the accreditation process of the RNGOs was characterized by internal diversification – first, with regard to the religious traditions of the respective organizations and second, with regard to their practical agenda. As soon as one links these observations to the results of the case analyses, it becomes possible to further explain the developments of the RNGO community in two ways. First, the case analyses underline once again the extent to which these general trends among RNGOs formed part and parcel of the wider developments of the ‘long 1960s’. Phenomena such as the civil rights movement, the so-­called students’ revolution, or respective changes inside religious traditions had a significant influence on the internal agendas as well as the formal activities of the RNGOs. In this sense, the analysis of UN-­related activities and the construction of UN- and human rights-­related discourses inside the cases highlight the overall changes among the RNGOs and the embeddedness of these changes in the present-­day religious scene. Second, the case analyses suggest that there is a link between the changes from Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism within the cases and the developments of the wider RNGO community. In both cases the first generation of UN-­related experts saw the 1960s as a time of major shifts and constructed these shifts in terms of a clash of generations. In the light of the previous analyses, these changes help to provide a more differentiated interpretation of the respective developments in the RNGO community by highlighting the similarities between the developments of the RNGO community and a twofold process within the cases: the 1960s confronted the UN-­related experts inside the RNGOs (1) with a new interest in international relations (inside their respective organizations) and pushed them (2) to focus even more on the UN (perceived as their central area of expertise). Taken together, these observations highlight a surprising contemporaneity between the developments of the two cases and the dynamization and expansion of the wider RNGO accreditation process. Of course such a contemporaneity cannot be taken for a causal relationship. As far as the present argument is concerned, it indicates, however, that the case analyses help to pinpoint a better

172   Worldwide trend towards activism understanding of the more general developments in as far as they propose an explanation via internal processes. Between the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the specific trends that have been highlighted inside the case analyses seem to coincide with the much more general developments that led towards the diversification and expansion of the RNGO community. In support of this overall explanation, the case analyses are also able to highlight one particular feature of the respective changes that is of vital importance to assess their wider significance – their embeddedness in specific milieus. 7.2.1  Embedded in specific milieus In order to make this point, one has to come back to what has been described as the first phase of the RNGO accreditation process during the years 1947–1966. Following the analyses presented in Chapter 4, this phase of RNGO activities was almost exclusively dominated by a relatively small group of Judeo-­Christian NGOs that were all trying to represent either their religious tradition as a whole or particular groups inside their religious tradition on an international level. In addition, the case analyses suggest that these organizations were dominated by members of a very specific social milieu. This hypothesis is primarily based upon the observation that in both cases early UN-­related activities were initially dominated by a particular set of Church Diplomats that were far from being identical to the majority of the protagonists inside the organizations in question (let alone their general constituency). The case analyses show that these people played a threefold role in the development of the cases. On the one hand, they identified international relations as a significant context for the activities of their respective organizations. On the other hand, they started to cooperate with the UN on a day-­to-day basis. And finally, they dominated the statements and positions of their organizations targeting this particular context. This observation becomes even more interesting as soon as one keeps the similarities between early RNGO activities in mind. Even a most superficial look at the Church Diplomats inside Pax Romana and the CCIA makes it very clear that these protagonists can be linked to a joint milieu that formed the recruitment ground for both cases. Despite their different religious and cultural backgrounds, all the initial UN experts had an explicit global outlook and an interest in international relations that served as a joint denominator for their activities. In addition, they all came from a university-­trained spectrum of society that was – at the time – the equivalent of a specific political and economic elite. In other terms the same is true with regard to the role of Civil Society Activists. Their biographies (as well as the construction of the conflicts between the first and second generation of UN-­related experts) propose that they came from a milieu that was distinct from that of the Church Diplomats. Civil Society Activists were no longer part of the old power elites of the 1940s and 1950s. They came from a milieu that can be described as a new urban middle class with a global outlook, and they formed the overall basis of most of the NGO activities in general.

Worldwide trend towards activism   173 Taken together, these observations advance the wider interpretation of the present analyses in two interlinked directions. On the one hand, the emphasis on this particular milieu reduces the scope of UN activities to rather small groups of people coming from a very specific milieu. On the other hand, it proposes that this milieu dominated RNGO activities beyond religious and cultural boundaries. In other words, as soon as one compares general trends inside the RNGO community with developments inside the case analyses, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a very specific phenomenon of worldwide significance. These findings become even more significant, as soon as one links those interpretations to more recent theoretical debates in the field of religion and international relations that argue for a worldwide trend towards activism.

7.3  A Worldwide trend towards activism This final step of the present argument is, obviously, approaching subject matter as well as time periods that have not been covered by source material gained from the archives. They are, rather, trying to read those results in the light of two more recent debates – thus opening the frame of analysis to more general interpretations. In other words, even though the following considerations are not directly based upon the case analyses, they try to interpret the results of the latter with regard to two more general discussions on the role of religions in international relations. The first of these more general discussions is directly linked to the idea of a particular social milieu that forms the basis for RNGO activities. In this respect it is interesting to make the link between the previous observations and Martin Riesebrodt’s hypothesis that fundamentalism is based upon a particular milieu of a paternalistic nature.1 If the previous analyses are correct, this would propose a fascinating parallel between fundamentalist and liberal readings of religious traditions and their place in public space. Not too far away from Peter L. Berger’s most recent observations,2 they highlight the structural similarities between those two constructs of religions. From this point of view, it becomes even more interesting to see that a more conservative spectrum of RNGOs started to enter the NGO community during the 2000s. In the decade of the major UN global conferences, they began to perceive the UN as a significant context. On a practical level, this supposes that these new RNGOs went through processes not too different from the processes that dominated the two cases in the 1940s and 1950s. More generally speaking, this observation suggests a shift in the whole setting. RNGO activities seem to be no longer limited to a particularly liberal milieu. In this sense the basis of these activities is not only to cross the borders of religious traditions but also the borders of social milieus within those traditions. This line of thought links the debates to another more general discussion. It refers back to one of the implicit themes of the resurgence debates that has already been alluded to in the Introduction to this book – the emphasis of authors such as Peter Beyer or Hans G. Kippenberg3 on the worldwide dimension of the

174   Worldwide trend towards activism resurgence of religions. Against this background the trend towards Civil Society Activism proposes that there really is a global dimension to those processes – that this dimension follows, however, very specific trajectories. The previous analyses propose to reconsider the global dimension of the resurgence debates in two ways. On the one hand, they follow the protagonists of resurgence debates by underlining the widening scope of the trend towards Civil Society Activism, thus supporting the characterization of these developments as a worldwide phenomenon. On the other hand, however, they accentuate the fact that this trend was very much linked to a certain set of experts that dominated most UN- and human rights-­related activities. In other words, the above analyses propose that the global dimension of this type of resurgence is based upon an elite phenomenon dominated by individual experts, that has particular influence on the construction of particular discourses inside religiously affiliated organizations. In this way, the generalization process presented in this chapter prepares the basis for the more general discussions of the final chapter, which presents a re-­ evaluation of the resurgence debates that formed the starting-­point of this book.

Notes 1 Riesebrodt, Martin, Fundamentalismus als patriarchalische Protestbewegung – Amerikanische Protestanten (1910–1928) und iranische Schiiten (1961–1971) im Vergleich, Tübingen 1990. 2 Berger, Peter L. (ed.), Between Relativism and Fundametalism – Religious Resources for a Middle Position, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2010; Berger, Peter L., Dialog zwischen religiösen Traditionen in einem Zeitalrter der Relativität, Tübingen 2011. 3 Beyer, Peter (ed.), Religion im Prozess der Globalisierung, Würzburg 2001; Beyer, Peter, Religions in Global Society, London/New York 2006; Kippenberg, Hans et al., ‘Varieties of Deprivatization – Revisiting Religious Communities in the Public Sphere’, Journal of Religion in Europe 6 (2013), pp. 133–142.

8 A re-­evaluation of the resurgence debates

Right from the beginning, the book at hand has been dominated by two interlinked lines of thought. On the one hand, it took the general idea of a worldwide and recent increase of religions’ individual and/or societal significance as the central marker of the resurgence debates and used this concept to identify the subject- matter of the present analyses as the starting-­point for the present analyses. On the other hand, it introduced an approach that inverses the main direction of the classical resurgence debates by looking into what the author described as the ‘black box’ of a particular set of religiously affiliated organizations – the Religious Non-­governmental Organizations (RNGOs) that have successfully approached the United Nations (UN) for formal accreditation. Based upon these two lines of thought, the four main chapters of the book focused upon detailed, empirical analyses of two specific RNGOs formally accredited to the UN (the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs and Pax Romana). In order to analyse these two cases, Chapter 4 presented a general description of the context of the UN with a particular focus on the development of the human rights discourse from the mid-­1940s to the mid-­1970s. Chapters 5 and 6 provided detailed analyses of the construction of UN- and human rights-­related discourses within the two cases, with a particular emphasis on their embeddedness in their respective religious traditions. Chapter 7 finally compared the results of the two case analyses and linked the developments of the cases back to the broader developments of the RNGO community in order to work towards a generalization of the research results. The present chapter is now the place to come back to the general heuristics frame of reference formulated in Chapters 1 and 2. In order to do so, it will use the results of the two case analyses and their generalization to re-­focus on the three questions that served as major points of reference for all the different steps that have so far been taken: 1 2

How far is the so-­called resurgence of religions based upon changes inside a specific group of religiously affiliated organizations that describe themselves as Religious NGOs? To what extent do those internal changes – if there are any – add to the understanding of the resurgence debates?

176   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates 3

In what way do the respective analyses contribute to a better understanding of the analysis of religions?

Along the lines of those guiding questions, the present chapter will develop a threefold argument. It will answer the first question by referring to one of the central empirical results of the present book – the observation that the UN-­ related activities of the RNGOs were dominated by an internal development from ‘Church Diplomacy’ to ‘Civil Society Activism’. In a second step, it will be argued that this general trend can serve as the basis for a new perspective on the resurgence debates that highlights the dialectical nature of the respective processes and underlines the interdependences between the processes inside concrete, religiously affiliated organizations and their respective contexts. This finally leads to a response to the third question, which reflects upon the construction of the concepts of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ that are central to properly understand the processes inside RNGOs in the context of the UN. Following this general line of thought, the chapter is divided into four sections. The first three sections correspond to the answers to the three initial questions, and the final section uses those considerations and elaborates on potential lines of future research.

8.1  Trends inside religiously affiliated organizations To answer the first of the guiding questions (How far is the so-­called resurgence of religions based upon changes inside religious organizations?) one has to start with a reference to the empirical scope of the present analyses. As has already been spelled out in Chapters 2 and 7, all the existing literature on RNGOs in the context of the UN is very clear about the diversity of these organizations – with regards to their explicit aims, their religious affiliations, as well as their cultural backgrounds.1 Since the 1940s, the overall community of RNGOs with formal accreditation to the UN has been developing in a very dynamic way. And the RNGO community is but a tiny portion of the much wider group of religiously affiliated organizations in existence today.2 Under these conditions, it goes without saying that the two cases that stand at the centre of the present analyses highlight a very particular aspect of RNGO activities in the context of the UN as well as the more general developments of religiously affiliated organizations. Due to the initial decision to focus on the earliest history of these activities, the present book has dealt with Christian organizations that had (and still have) their headquarters in the global North. While the time frame of the analyses (from the mid-­1940s to the mid-­1970s) covers a period that also saw the first accreditations of RNGOs with Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu affiliation, these organizations are not systematically included in the analyses because they were founded after the crucial period of the first RNGO accreditations immediately after World War II. The discussions in Chapter 7 should have made it very clear that the focus of the above analyses is, however, not only on closing a gap in the present research

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   177 literature; it also adds a new perspective to the understanding of more general processes inside religiously affiliated organizations up to the 1990s and 2000s. In a nutshell: the following paragraphs will argue that the trend towards Civil Society Activism rectified changes in religiously affiliated organizations that have formed the basis for their presence in public space. 8.1.1  Internal trend towards Civil Society Activism This argument asks at first for a summary of what the very idea of Civil Society Activism is about. As pointed out in the comparisons in Chapter 7, the case analyses have made it possible to identify a general trend inside RNGOs from Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism. At the latest, this trend began in the 1940s with the perception inside RNGOs that the UN was a place to interact with ‘the world’ – first in the sense of a global entity and second in the sense of a social sphere, as opposed to the sphere of religion. In other words, the above analyses propose that the UN attracted the attention of early RNGO protagonists because it was perceived as a context that allowed their organizations to influence (and even change) worldwide discourses. They underline the observation that the protagonists inside RNGOs constructed the UN as a significant place for their activities because it was so different that it was described as secular – as opposed to religious. As far as the present considerations are concerned, this particular perception of the UN is of such significance because it formed the starting-­point for quite complex changes inside RNGOs. In the 1940s and 1950s it led to the establishment of a group of experts with a particular interest in the UN and the idea of human rights. These initial experts perceived themselves as peers to national and UN diplomats, and dominated the formation of early UN- and human rights-­ related discourses inside the cases in order to be able to formulate a position vis-­ à-vis the UN (thus the label ‘Church Diplomats’). During the next two decades, the discourses that were very much shaped by those early experts were reformulated by a new group of protagonists. From the 1960s onwards, the human rights discourse became an integral part of the self-­perception of the cases, thus strengthening the links between RNGOs and the wider NGO community from the 1960s onwards (thus the label ‘Civil Society Activists’). In order to properly understand the wider, structural significance of this general trend towards Civil Society Activism, it is important to put it in the context of wider RNGO activities and to highlight two further characteristics the previous analyses have not yet made explicit. First, the developments of the 1960s and 1970s can be interpreted as the unintended consequences of decisions taken in the 1940s and 1950s. The initial activities in the UN context formed the basis for the establishment of new discourses inside the cases that served as the immediate frame of reference for activist approaches from the 1960s onwards – in part against the explicit convictions of the initial protagonists. Second, these developments followed very distinct trajectories that were dominated by the religious traditions the respective organizations were aligned with. From the 1940s

178   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates to the 1970s, the theological and structural framing of UN-­related activities took new and distinct forms that influenced the relations of RNGOs towards the UN and civil society. These two observations propose that the increasing establishment of the mode of Civil Society Activism reflects more than just a contingent, strategic decision among a specific group of RNGO actors. In particular, the fact that these processes can be described as unintended consequences suggests that the respective changes are based upon more fundamental, structural developments inside the cases. On the one hand, the trend towards Civil Society Activism was grounded in a new formal approach vis-­à-vis the UN that finally put the activities of RNGOs into the context of the wider NGO community. On the other hand, this new formal approach formed the foundation of a new construction of discourses (such as the human rights discourse) that were formerly perceived as being directly linked to the UN. And all of this coincided with a general increase in the formal accreditation of RNGOs, so that it seems to be at least plausible to see those trends in the context of a wider dynamization of this field in general. As to the present argument, it is now interesting to further discuss the extent to which these changes can be interpreted as part of a more general resurgence of religions.3 8.1.2  Establishment in the public space of international relations To cut a long story short, the following paragraphs make the point that the case analyses have been able to identify one of the sources of the resurgence of religions – in so far as they have identified a trend inside RNGOs that transformed them into actors in those parts of international relations they perceived as a global public space. To make this point, the following considerations start from the very simple, heuristic understanding of the resurgence debates that was initially described in Chapter 2, conceptualizing the resurgence of religions as an increase in the individual and societal significance of religions in opposition to the ‘secularization paradigm’. In addition, however, they underline the significance of those strands of the resurgence debates that are connected to the idea of public space as a central category of resurgence. On this level, the previous reflections upon the development from Church Diplomacy towards Civil Society Activism add three frequently neglected aspects to the analyses of the role of religions in international relations. At first, the trend towards Civil Society Activism supports those analyses that argue for an increasing visibility of RNGO activities over time.4 During the 1960s, RNGOs started to present themselves as civil society actors working in the wider public sphere (as opposed to classical diplomats working behind closed doors). In addition, the trend towards Civil Society Activism underlines – second – the internal foundations of the increasingly active role of religiously affiliated organizations in the context of international relations – based upon the emergence of new elites inside the cases. Finally, this reading proposes that the changes of the 1960s stand for a more general trend inside RNGOs that triggered a wider

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   179 attempt among religiously affiliated organizations to find a place within the NGO community. As soon as one adds those aspects to the equation, the concept of Civil Society Activism helps to re-­assess some of the debates presented in Chapter 2. It suggests that the resurgence of religiously affiliated organizations in international relations is more than just a change in the external perception of their activities. It rather puts the emphasis on the presence of those organizations in public space and argues that this increasing public presence is the consequence of changes in the very structure of the organizations in question.5 Developments in the two cases make very clear the extent to which the work in the context of the UN triggered the establishment of new discourses inside the World Council of Churches and Pax Romana, and to what extent these discourses became an integral aspect of the self-­understanding of those organizations as NGOs in the realm of civil society. This reading makes it possible to add two further aspects to present-­day debates on the resurgence of religions in international relations. First, the trend towards Civil Society Activism underlines the extent to which the presence of religiously affiliated organizations such as RNGOs was based upon a relatively small group of experts like as O. Frederick Nolde (CCIA), Edward Kirchner, and Henri de Riedmatten (both Pax Romana), who were part of the traditional power elite. Further developments inside the two cases suggest, however, that the initial establishment in the context of the UN was not at all undisputed and that later attempts to strengthen the links to civil society were accompanied by ongoing controversies illustrating the limited embeddedness of these processes. In other words, the analyses highlight the distinction between (1) the position of the organizations in international relations and (2) the internal support for this positioning, and caution against equating the one with the other. Second, the case analyses put particular emphasis on the long traditions some of the RNGOs look back upon inside the UN. In the case of Pax Romana, they were based upon a very particular strand of ‘Latin’ lay Catholicism that can be traced back to the turn of the twentieth century. In the case of the CCIA, parallel trends were very much linked to the Anglo-­Amer­ican idea of ‘Christendom’ that emerged around the same time. In this respect, the present analyses draw attention to the observation that the UN-­related activities of RNGOs predate the 1970s (which are frequently identified as the starting-­point for these developments) by about a hundred years. Consequently, they suggest the inclusion of  those longer histories in the analysis of the present-­day situation and the description of the developments of the 1970s as a change in the mode of public action (rather than identifying their establishment in public space as a new phenomenon). On a more theoretical level, this indication of the development from Church Diplomacy to Civil Society Activism finally proposes a reading of the activities of religiously affiliated organizations that – at the same time – supports and modifies José Casanova’s general deprivatization hypothesis.6 On the one hand, the case analyses undoubtedly underline RNGO’s increasing integration of and

180   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates into the structures of the wider civil society, thus supporting Casanova’s concept of public religions. On the other hand, however, they have made it quite clear that the internal trend towards Civil Society Activism was based upon longstanding changes. In both cases, this trend can be traced back to pre-­war developments. It gained initial momentum in the 1940s, with intensified cooperation between RNGOs and those organizations the early Pax Romana representatives repeatedly described as neutre. The 1960s finally saw such an acceleration of those processes that RNGOs no longer perceived themselves as Catholic, Protestant, or Ecumenical – they increasingly started to act as religious NGOs in public space. And this reconstruction of the complex changes inside RNGOs provides a basis for the more general response to the second question: to what extent do those internal changes – if there are any – add to the understanding of the resurgence debates?

8.2  Understanding of resurgence debates The answer to this question initially has to come back to the observation that the concept of the resurgence of religions has so far been of twofold significance. First, it served as an emic starting-­point for the overall research agenda of the present analyses that resonates in very diverse contexts. Based upon a number of different – yet parallel – rationales (e.g. dominating political elites, religious officials and experts, and mainstream media) the concept of resurgence basically triggered the interest of the present book in the phenomenon of religiously affiliated organizations in general and RNGOs in particular. In this respect, the idea of resurgence has been used as more than just another attempt to grasp the role of religions in present-­day society. In the context of the present analyses, it also documents a newly emerging discourse that is in itself an interesting object of analysis. Second, the notion of the resurgence of religions has also been used as an etic concept. Chapter 2 has made it quite clear that the idea of resurgence has developed into one of the central categories in the present-­day study of religions that gains much of its momentum from a re-­assessment of what its main supporters describe as the ‘secularization paradigm’.7 In other words, the present analyses see the analytical core of resurgence debates as very much linked to the re-­assessment of secularization processes – or rather a particular strand of these processes. Chapter 2 has outlined how authors such as Friedrich Graf, Jürgen Habermas, Samuel P. Huntington, and Mark Juergensmeyer have repeatedly made the point that we are confronted with a strengthening of religions – primarily in terms of political power but also in terms of individual significance.8 Starting from this creative tension, the above observations provide the basis for a more complex reading of resurgence debates. On the one hand, the previous analyses show how far the dynamic developments inside the two cases (as well as the overall RNGO community) are based upon complex changes in the social fabric of religions and to what extent these changes are

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   181 necessary to understand the concrete developments inside RNGOs. On the other hand, they underline the extent to which these changes triggered an increasing tendency inside religiously affiliated organizations such as RNGOs towards a presence in public space that started from the early 1960s onwards and which gained significant momentum during the early 1970s. Taken together, these observations ask for a reformulation of the very concept of resurgence as well as its link towards secularization theory. The following sections will present this argument in two subsequent steps. In the first step, they propose a reading of developments inside the cases that highlights the dialectical character of the processes in question. In the second step, they underline that it would be misleading to grasp those developments with a concept of resurgence of religions that is reduced to an opposition against processes of secularization. At first sight, it is even possible to describe the developments inside RNGOs as a type of secularization, rather than its demise. 8.2.1  Dialectics of the resurgence of religions To further develop the first step of this argument, one has to start from the observation that the upcoming section is going to ‘re-­inverse’ the point of view that has so far been dominating the present book. Up to the present section, the discussions have been shaped by the look into the ‘black box’ of the RNGOs. They were focusing on the discourses within the two cases as well as their very complex construction by respective groups of experts. At the same time, however, the general trend towards Civil Society Activism underlines the extent to which developments inside RNGOs formed the basis for their presence in public space. It is in this sense that the analyses of UN- and human rights-­related activities within the two cases contribute to a more general discussion of the resurgence of religions. To put this differently: the previous sections have focused on the internal rationale that shaped the UN- and human rights-­related activities of RNGOs. The following sections will take these internal observations as the starting-­point to further discuss the position of RNGOs in public space. In a way, this re-­inversion of the analytic perspective resonates with the very general idea of ‘interdependences’ that was introduced in Chapter 1 with regard to the works of authors such as Kurt Rudolph, Hubert Seiwert, Burkhard Gladigow, and Hans G. Kippenberg.9 By putting the internal processes into their wider socio-­cultural context, the following paragraphs help to better understand the conceptual necessity to analyse the developments of the context, and the developments inside religiously affiliated organizations – be it in one single study or (as has been the case here) as a contribution to an interdisciplinary agenda.10 Following this line of thought, the present analyses of RNGO activities in the context of the UN have made it possible to highlight the different steps or phases of respective developments. At first, RNGO activities were dominated by the trend towards Civil Society Activism that was based upon the construction of the UN as a very specific context that a number of RNGO protagonists perceived as

182   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates significant. This triggered – second – attempts among protagonists inside the RNGOs to approach what they perceived during the 1940s and 1950s as a decisively secular public. On this basis, emerged – third – increasing activities of these experts in the context of the UN. Fourth, during the 1960s and 1970s, these activities led to a construction of the whole situation that triggered ongoing integration of some of the major UN-­related discourses inside RNGOs. And all these different steps finally set the stage for further developments that were no longer the subject of the present analyses. This reading of the events now provides an entry point for more general conceptual considerations in as far as it proposes understanding the resurgence of religions as a dialectical process. The resurgence of religions must not be reduced to a singular, unidirectional process. It rather has to be understood as the result of ongoing interdependences – in this case between the RNGOs and the UN. And such a dialectical reading asks for an opening of the discussion – at least in two directions. First, this approach underlines the extent to which changes inside RNGOs were embedded in overall socio-­cultural changes, and how they were, at the same time, shaping those changes. In this sense, it challenges more traditional concepts of resurgence by underlining the necessity to analyse the processes inside RNGOs in order to understand their position in the UN context.11 To put this more generally: the activities of religiously affiliated organizations in public space coincide with very complex internal changes in their rationales and it is impossible to properly assess the one without the other. At the same time, this reading of the previous analyses relativizes – second – the basic concept of the resurgence of religions. It underlines that – at least on the societal level – it would be oversimplifying to describe the developments towards Civil Society Activism as a counter-­secularization. The analyses rather suggest the characterization of developments of RNGOs in the context of the UN as a type of ‘isomorphism’, put forward in the work of Paul DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell.12 Conceptually speaking, this means that trends inside the religiously affiliated organizations are more than just a mere passive reaction to a specific socio-­cultural context. RNGOs were actively approaching the UN, and the respective changes were very much shaped by their religious traditions. Analyses of resurgence processes that neglect this dimension inevitably lead towards simplistic results. Following up on this shift in the analytical perspective, it could even be argued that the type of resurgence in public space that has been analysed in the present book is a form of secularization. 8.2.2  Resurgence in public space as a form of secularization Obviously, this second step of the argument depends very much upon the concept of secularization that is used as a frame of reference as well as the empirical material that has been analysed from this point of view. (And this already points towards the discussions that will form the centre of the next section.) As far as the present section is concerned, the subsequent considerations will use the results of

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   183 the case analyses with regard to a rather traditional concept of secularization, that is more or less in line with a conventional reading of the ‘secularization paradigm’.13 In short, they conceptualize secularization as a decrease of religious influence on the societal as well as the individual level. If one looks at the previous discussions from this point of view, two observations immediately suggest the interpretation of the trend towards Civil Society Activism as a form of secularization. First, developments inside the two cases have underlined fundamental changes in the relationship between RNGOs and political decision makers on the national and international level. In this respect, the approach of the 1940s and 1950s was much more direct (based upon personal relations and direct interaction), whereas the approach of the 1960s and 1970s became more indirect (using, for example, the media and NGO coalitions to influence policy decisions). In terms of a secularization theory centred around political influence, this observation immediately translates at least into a decrease of direct access to political power, and thus a phenomenon of secularization. In the 1940s, the RNGO representatives were able to pick up the phone to contact political decision makers. In the 1960s, this was no longer the case and the second generation of RNGO representatives utilize public space to reach political decision makers. Second, the developments inside RNGOs underline the fact that the trend towards Civil Society Activism was characterized by an increasing integration of new discourses in RNGOs (or at least the reformulation of older discourses that had been rather weakly developed). The protagonists inside RNGOs not only started to use the practical tools of the wider NGO community; they also started to actively refer to concepts such as human rights to legitimize their own activities – as well as the position of their respective organizations. In other words, parallel to an increased level of cooperation with other NGOs inside the UN, they began to incorporate new discourses they themselves had initially perceived as being secular; and these new discourses became more and more accepted inside the respective organizations. So once again, from the point of view of a traditional concept of secularization, these processes have to be analysed as an increasing level of secularization. In the light of traditional secularization theories, these two processes can be interpreted as a decrease of political power as well as an exchange of a religious rationale for a secular one. In both respects, they describe the establishment of RNGOs in the context of the UN as part of a process of secularization. It is only at a second glance that the limits of this reading spring to mind. In the light of the discussions in section 8.2, it can be argued that the above interpretations are confronted with a categorical bias. They try to grasp a dialectical process in terms of simple bipolar conceptualization of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. This, however, only makes sense as long as the categories of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ are perceived as the two ends of a spectrum. As soon as one uses those categories in the sense of a zero-­sum-game, this approach inevitably restricts the analytic value of the applied categories.14 In front of this background, the present analyses propose going one step further. While working towards an answer to the third of the initial questions

184   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates (In what way do the respective analyses contribute to a better understanding of the analysis of religions?), they suggest a move away from the conceptualization of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ in the sense of a zero-­sum-game – opening a new perspective for the analysis of present-­day religions.

8.3  A new perspective for the analysis of present-­day religions In order to take this last step of the present argument, one has to begin by highlighting two interlinked results of the previous sections. On the one hand, the above considerations have underlined to what degree the trend towards Civil Society Activism has contributed to a resurgence of religions by triggering the establishment of religiously affiliated organizations such as RNGOs in public space. On the other hand, they have put particular emphasis on the categorical bias that is at work as soon as one tries to grasp the dialectics of these processes by a simple dichotomy of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’, thus opting either for or against a resurgence of religions. The following considerations further enhance those discussions by coming back to the more recent debates on the concept of secularization that have already been introduced in Chapter 2. Along those lines, the following paragraphs will make the point that the above considerations are able to add more general insights to the understanding of present-­day religions by proposing a re-­assessment of the categorical basis of secularization theories. This argument will be presented in two subsequent steps. First, the dynamic construction of the categories of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ will be underlined. On this basis, the second part of this section will discuss the potential of the metaphor of ‘sedimentation’ to grasp these dynamic constructions. 8.3.1  Dynamic constructions of the religious and the secular To substantiate the first steps of this argument, it should be enough to mention just two examples from the case analyses. First, the previous analyses have opened a way to reassess the significance of religious contributions to the history of human rights that moves away from the essentialist question – to what extent do human rights ‘really’ have a religious foundation – towards a more dialectical reading of the processes in question.15 In doing so, they propose an approach that is open to different framings of human rights that have been significant in the more recent history of this discourse. The two case analyses make the point that it would be misleading to deny the protagonists inside Pax Romana and the WCC an interest in human rights debates. Rather, the cases have shown that the integration of the human rights discourse has increasingly influenced the general structure as well as the concrete activities of the organizations in question. Another example for the dynamic constructions of the categories of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ can be linked to the development of protagonists inside RNGOs towards Civil Society Activism that had been so significant for understanding the changes inside these organizations. As has already been spelled out

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   185 at the end of the previous section, the interpretation of this process as a mere secularization is rapidly reaching its limitations – not only because it contradicts the explicit framing of the actors, but also because it conflicts with the overall perception of the situation. Now it is possible to make the point that the case analyses rather propose a reading of those processes that underlines the idea of integration or merging of different framings rather than a replacement of one framing by the other. It is this approach that makes it possible to characterize, RNGOs as NGOs that are religiously affiliated and merge the two frames of reference.16 Having said all this, the above observations immediately resonate with those more recent approaches in the study of secularization processes that emphasize that the socio-­cultural construction of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ is based upon complex processes that are neither unidirectional nor clear-­cut. As outlined out in Chapters 1 and 2, authors such as David Martin, James Taylor, Hartmut Zinser, José Casanova, and Karl Gabriel have emphasized the flexible and gradual changes in the constructions of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’: their work has underlined the general idea of shifts in those constructions17 while – at the same time – questioning the idea of a clear-­cut line that is associated with concepts such as the border between the religious and the political field or between the religious and the artistic system.18 Against this background, the previous observations help to address an important categorical confusion. While at a given point in time the border between ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ might be constructed as a very clear-­cut distinction, medium-­term analyses suggest that the construction of these concepts is actually much more dynamic. In this sense, it would be misleading to underestimate the potential for change inside religiously affiliated organizations such as RNGOs. They are completely able to rapidly adapt and contribute to new trends. At least this is what happened in the cases of Pax Romana and the CCIA in the context of the UN, and there is no reason to believe that this would not be the case with other religiously affiliated organizations. This finally leads directly to the question of how to grasp these processes on the level of etic terminology. At this point, the present argument comes back to those most recent British discussions on secularization theory that have suggested a sedimentation of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. The following paragraphs make the point that this metaphor is helpful to better grasp the processes in question – if indeed it is used in a particular way. 8.3.2  Sedimentation of the religious and the secular As presented at the end of Chapter 2, the concept (or rather the metaphor) of ‘the sediment’ or of ‘sedimentation’ was introduced by Linda Woodhead as one of the results of the ‘Religion and Society Programme’. In the final edited volume of the programme, Woodhead argues in accord with David Martin:19 The approach offered here rejects the starting point that the terms ‘religion’ and ‘the secular’ are neutral concepts which can serve as unproblematic

186   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates building blocks of data collection and analysis. It treats them instead as an integral part of the milieu to be analysed rather than as detached standpoints from which it can be viewed. [. . .] This multi-­layered, sedimented situation explains why secularization theory continues to be able to explain some, but not all, of the present situation.20 In this sense, the concept of sedimentation is part of the more recent challenges to simplistic ideas of secularization that propose a reformulation of the relationship between ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. In her argument, Woodhead locates herself in the tradition of those analyses that underline the significance of the categories of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ for the present-­day constructions of religions, thus underlining the necessity of including those categories in academic debates. At the same time, she accentuates the dynamics of the discursive construction of these concepts, the complexity of the respective semantic fields, and the underlying power aspects. Taken together, this provides an interesting new analytic tool for the study of religions that breaks with the idea of a zero-­sum-game, and opens the discussions towards more granular historical analyses. As far as the present considerations are concerned, this tool is of twofold significance. First, the idea of sedimentation makes it possible to grasp the developments of RNGOs beyond the binary code of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. On the one hand, it underlines the internal complexity of this type of religiously affiliated organization, and pinpoints why these organizations are so hard to grasp. From this point of view, RNGOs actually have to be seen as one of the places where the present-­day relationship between ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ is constantly negotiated. On the other hand, this more dynamic approach helps to question essentialist attributions to the processes inside those organizations (e.g. the construction of discourses). It shows that the respective developments that took place inside RNGOs are much more complex and dynamic than a unidirectional trend from religious to secular – or vice versa. In addition, the empirical observations make it – second – possible to present the idea of sedimentation in a clearer way: The concept of sediment (and this is completely in line with the general idea put forward by Woodhead) must not be restricted to a traditional evolutionary reading that has such a long history in the Academic Study of Religions.21 Rather, it has to be used in a way that makes it possible to capture the borders between different sediments in a way that is not clear cut. The above analyses propose, for example, gradual shifts from one sediment to the other – from a secular sediment to a religious one and to yet another secular one.22 At the same time, the history of RNGOs in the context of the UN proposes that particular sediments are never complete or absolute. In order to adequately assess those processes, it is necessary to identify ‘patches’ as well as ‘fractions’ in the different sediments.23 In this sense, it is interesting to link the idea of sedimentation to Bourdieu’s field theory.24 First, even if one wants to stick to the utilitarian tradition that Bourdieu’s sociology of religions is embedded in, the concept of sedimentation

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   187 proposes that his notion of the ‘field’ has to be perceived in a much more complex way than proposed by Bourdieu.25 The idea of sedimentation proposes that fields consist of different patches of sediments that are part of their construction over time, while at the same time dominating their present structure. Second, field theory helps to further underline the aspect of actors in the (conflicting) constructions of different sediments. The reconstruction of the human rights discourse has made it very clear that the different sediments of those discourses do not just lay one upon the other. These socio-­cultural processes are highly dynamic and frequently controversial. Applied in this way, the concept of sedimentation opens an analytical perspective that makes it possible to grasp the history of particular religious traditions in a new way. It proposes that they are dominated by different structural logics that are all in existence (or at least of potential significance) today. This suggests an interesting theory of religious change that is open to the idea that even aspects of religious traditions that were initially perceived as outside those traditions can become their defining characteristic. To put this differently: sticking to the sediment metaphor, one could say that present-­day religious activities are constituted of a wide range of different sediments that are – at the same time – part of the situation today. In this sense the above phases have to be interpreted as ideal types that are in a dialectical relationship. Taken together, these considerations open a number of perspectives on future research – not only with regards to religiously affiliated organizations and their position in present-­day society but also in more general terms.

8.4  Perspectives on future research Forming the very end of the present argument, this final section has to start with a more personal statement: the previous considerations have followed a twofold agenda. On the one hand, they contributed to the study of the resurgence of religions. On the other hand, they have tried to introduce a new perspective into the study of religions in present-­day societies. I hope that the analyses of RNGO activities in the context of the UN have been able to underline the potential of an approach that looks into the ‘black box’ of religiously affiliated organizations. They have practiced a research strategy that used the idea of the resurgence of religions as a heuristic tool in order to identify an interesting aspect of present-­ day society. At the same time, they have used an approach that is very much indebted to a specific reading of the Academic Study of Religions in order to analyse this subject matter. Along those lines, this particular approach adds a threefold contribution to the analyses of present-­day religions. First, it has proposed a dialectical concept of resurgence that underlines the processes inside religiously affiliated organizations as a basis for their resurgence in public space. Second, it has highlighted the trend towards Civil Society Activism to characterize the more recent developments of RNGOs in the context of the UN. Finally, it has expanded upon the concept of ‘sedimentation’ to add new dimensions to the discussion of secularization processes.

188   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates Based upon these experiences, this final section proposes the expansion of this type of research in different directions. First of all, there certainly is a need for other analyses of the processes inside religiously affiliated organizations. The existing analyses of organizations that are affiliated to Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim traditions underline the differences between those organizations and the two cases.26 So far, there is, however, still a significant gap with regard to the  analyses of the internal processes that form the basis of these differences. The present analyses propose that the general trend towards Civil Society Activism – that stood at the centre of the present analyses – will also be significant for the development of RNGOs with other religious backgrounds. At the same time they expect, however, these developments to follow different trajectories leading in the same direction. The same is also true with regard to the analysis of the empirical constructions of the emic concepts of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. Until now, the existing analyses that have been mentioned above have very much focused on the outside perception of those concepts. The analyses at hand propose that these discussions must not neglect the dynamic developments inside the respective traditions or organizations.27 The construction of different sediments of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ are as dynamic in the religious field as in the fields of politics, arts, and economics.28 In this respect, the present analyses propose a systematic comparison of those processes in different socio-­cultural contexts – be they local, national, international, or transnational. On a more general level, these considerations have two interlinked consequences for the analysis of religions. On the one hand, they further enhance the discussions that oppose an essentialization of any concept of religion. In this sense, the concept of sedimentation further expands upon the idea that the concept of ‘religious affiliation’ has been established in the present analysis right from the beginning. In order to construct an etic category of religion/religious one has to be able to inter alia describe the complex processes of affiliation or sedimentation.29 The concept of sediment proposes that these discussions focus on different layers or patches of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’ in order to properly describe the processes in question. On the other hand, these considerations add a contribution to the more general discussions around socio-­cultural constructions of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. The example of the construction of the human rights discourse makes very clear the extent to which a bipolar application of these concepts leads directly back to unproductive biases in the construction of the respective processes. The same can be shown with regard to the construction of violence, peace, or economic surplus.30 The answers to the question of the extent to which these phenomena can be characterized as ‘religious’ or ‘secular’ are based upon very complex processes of sedimentation and cannot be properly understood without taking the multilayered constructions of those phenomena into consideration. This opens fascinating areas for future research. Along those lines, the present analyses finally propose a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of religions that is open to confrontation from

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   189 d­ ifferent empirical sets of data. Resurgence debates are but one example of this type of challenge that is essential for a better theoretical approach to core categories of the analysis of religions.31 So far, the Academic Study of Religions has not been over-courageous in approaching these new phenomena. I hope that the present analyses have been able to illustrate the analytical potential of this type of analysis – for the Academic Study of Religions, as well as beyond.

Notes   1 Knox, Geoffrey (2002) (ed.), Religion and Public Policy at the UN, Washington, DC; Berger, Julia, ‘Religious Nongovernmental Organizations – An Explanatory Analysis’, in Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14 (2003), pp. 15–40.   2 To refer once again to a classic in this field: Boli, John and Thomas, George M., ‘INGOS and the Organization of World Culture’, in Boli, John and Thomas, George M. (eds), Constructing World Culture – International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford 1999, pp. 13–49.   3 The group of researchers around Jeremy Carrette argues in a similar vein: Carrette, Jeremy and Trigeaud, Sophie-­Hélène, ‘The Religion-­secular in International Politics – The Case of “Religious” NGOs at the United Nations’, in Abby, Day et al. (eds), Social Identities between the Sacred and the Secular, Farnham 2013, pp. 7–22.   4 Haynes, Jeffrey, Introduction to International Relations and Religion, 2nd edn, Harlow/London/New York 2013; Hanson, Eric O., Religion and Politics in the International System Today, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 2006.   5 Marshall, Katherine, Global Institutions of Religion – Ancient Movers, Modern Shakers, London/New York 2013; Toft, Monica D. et al., God’s Century – Resurgent Religion and Global Politics, New York/London 2011.   6 Casanova, José, Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago 1994. Casanova, José, ‘Public Religions Revisited’, in Vries, Hent de (ed.), Religion beyond a Concept, New York 2008, pp. 101–119; Casanova, José, ‘Westliche christliche Säkularisierung und Globalisierung’, in Casanova, José (ed.) Europas Angst vor der Religion, Berlin 2008, pp. 83–119.   7 For the respective literature, see Willems, Ulrich and Minkenberg, Michael, ‘Politik und Religion im Übergang – Tendenzen und Forschungsfragen am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts’, in Minkenberg, Michael and Willems, Ulrich (eds), Politik und Religion, Wiesbaden 2003, pp.  13–41, here: p.  22; Bruce, Steve, Secularization – In Defence of an Unfashionable Theory, Oxford 2011.   8 Graf, Friedrich W., Die Wiederkehr der Götter – Religion in der modernen Kultur, München 2007; Habermas, Jürgen, Glauben und Wissen, Frankfurt am Main 2001; Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York/London/Toronto 1996; Juergensmeyer, Mark, The New Cold War? – Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, Berkley/Los Angeles 1993.   9 Rudolph, Kurt, ‘Das Problem der Autonomie und Integrität der Religionswissenschaft’, in Kurt Rudolph (ed.), Geschichte und Probleme der Religionswissenschaft, Leiden/New York/Köln 1992, pp. 37–66; Gladigow, Burkhard and Kippenberg, Hans G. (eds) Neue Ansätze in der Religionswissenschaft, München 1988; Seiwert, ‘Hubert, Religionswissenschaft – Theoriebildung und Empiriebezug’, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 61 (1977), pp. 1–18. 10 Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Interdependenzen zwischen Religionsgemeinschaften und internationaler Politik – Religionswissenschaftliche Anmerkungen zu politikwissenschaftlichen Religionskonzeptionen’, Zeitschrift für international Beziehungen 17 (2010), pp. 75–99.

190   A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates 11 Petersen, Marie Juul (2010), ‘International Religious NGOs at the United Nations – A Study of a Group of Religious Organizations’, The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance 2010 (http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847, last accessed: 2015). Clarke, Gerard, ‘Faith Matters – Faith-­based Organizations, Civil Society, and International Development’, Journal of International Development 18 (2006), pp. 835–848. 12 DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter W., ‘The Iron Cage revisited – Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields’, Amer­ican Sociological Review 48 (1983), pp. 147–160. 13 As has been argued in Chapter 2, the present analyses see themselves in the context of more recent discussions about the concept of secularization that underline the historical construction of these respective core category as well as the wider re-­assessment of their analytical core. On this basis, section 8.3 will formulate the more general contributions of the present analyses to these debates. For a summary of the present state of the art, see Bruce, Steve, Secularization – In Defense of an Unfashionable Theory, Oxford 2011. 14 Further support for this critique, see Lehmann, Hartmut, Säkularisierung – Der europäische Sonderweg in Sachen Religion, Göttingen 2004; Baubérot, Jean, Les Laïcités dans le monde, 7th edn, Paris 2009; Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular – Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Stanford 2003; Schnettler, Bernt, ‘Alltag und Religion’, in Weyle, Birgit and Gräb, Wilhelm, Religion in der modernen Lebenswelt – Erscheinungsformen und Reflektionsperspektiven, Göttingen 2006, pp. 84–100. 15 Spickard, James V., ‘Human Rights through a religious Lens: A programmatic Argument’, Social Compass 49 (2002), pp. 227–238; Elsas, Christoph, ‘Human Rights’, in Elsas, Christoph (ed.), Tradition and Translation – Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene – Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin/New York 1994, pp. 435–451; Hackett, Rosalind I.J., ‘Human Rights: An Important Challenging New Field for the Study of Religion’, in Antes, Peter et al. (eds), New Approaches to the Study of Religion 2 – Textual, Comparative, Sociological, and Cognitive Approaches, Berlin/New York 2008, pp.  165–191; Jödicke, Ansgar (ed.), Religious Education, Politics, the State, and Society, Würzburg 2013. 16 Berner, Ulrich, Untersuchungen zur Verwendung des Synkretismus-­Begriffes, Wiesbaden 1982. 17 Martin, David, On Secularization – Towards a Revised General Theory, Aldershot/ Burlington 2005; Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age, Cambridge/London 2007; Zinser, Hartmut, ‘14 vorläufige Thesen zur Säkularisierung’, in: Hödl, Hans G. and Futterknecht, Veronica (ed.), Religionen nach der Säkularisierung – Festschrift für Johann Figl zum 65. Geburtstag, Münster 2011, pp. 16–24; Casanova, José, ‘Westliche christliche Säkularisierung und Globalisierung’, Casanova, José (ed.) Europas Angst vor der Religion, Berlin 2008, pp. 83–119; Gabriel, Karl et al. (ed.), Umstrittene Säkularisierung – Soziologische und historische Analysen zur Differenzierung von Religion und Politik, Berlin 2012. 18 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Genèse et structure du champ religieux’, Revue française de sociologie 12 (1971), pp. 295–334. Luhmann, Niklas, Die Religion der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main 2002. 19 See in the same edited volume, Martin, David and Catto, Rebecca, ‘The religious and the Secular’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, London/New York 2012, pp. 373–390. 20 Woodhead, Linda, ‘Introduction’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, London/New York 2012, pp.  1–33, here: pp.  24 and 26. 21 Tylor, Edward B., Research into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization, Chicago 1964 (1st edn 1865); Frazer, James G., The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion, abridged edition, London 1963 (1st edn 1922); Marret, Robert R., The Threshold of Religion, 2nd edn, London 1914.

A re-evaluation of the resurgence debates   191 22 Kippenberg, Hans G. and Stuckrad, Kocku von, Einführung in die Religionswissenschaft, München 2003; Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Gegenstände und wissenschaftlicher Kontext von Religionswissenschaft’, in Cancik, Hubert et al. (eds), Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, Bd. 1, Stuttgart 1988, pp. 26–40. 23 Knoblauch, Hubert, Populäre Religion – Auf dem Weg in eine spirituelle Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main/New York; Lüddeckens, Dorothea and Walthert, Rafael (eds), Fluide Religion – Neue religiöse Bewegungen im Wandel theoretischer und empirischer Systematisierung, Bielefeld 2010; Kehrer, Günter, Einführung in die Religionssoziologie, Darmstadt 1988. 24 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Genèse et structure du champ religieux’, in Revue française de Sociologie 12 (1971), pp. 295–334. 25 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Une interpretation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber’, in Archives européennes de Sociologie 12 (1971), pp. 3–21. 26 Benthall, Jonathan and Bellion-­Jourdan, Jérôme, Charitable Crescent – Politics of Aid in the Muslim World, London/New York 2003; Ghandour, Abdel-­Rahman, Jihad Humanitaire – Enquête sur les ONG Islamique, Paris 2002; Boehle, Josef, Inter-­ religious Co-­operation in a Global Age, Birmingham 2010. 27 Martin, David, A General Theory of Secularization, Oxford 1978; Gabriel, Karl et al. (ed.), Umstrittene Säkularisierung – Soziologische und historische Analysen zur Differenzierung von Religion und Politik, Berlin 2012; Schmidt, Thomas M. and Pitschmann, Annette (eds), Religion und Säkularisierung – Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch, Stuttgart/Weimar 2014. 28 Of course there is also a need for intercultural comparison, see Warner, Michael et al. (ed.), Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, Cambridge/London 2010; Calhoun, Craig et al., Rethinking Secularism, Oxford/London 2011. 29 Stolz, Fritz, Religion und Rekonstruktion – Ausgewählte Aufsätze herausgegeben von Daria Pezzoli-­Olgiati, Göttingen 2004; Schlieter, Jens, ‘Einleitung’, in Schlieter, Jens (ed.), Was ist Religion? – Texte von Cicero bis Luhmann, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 9–27. 30 Hervieu-­Léger, Danièle and Willaime, Jean-­Paul (eds), Sociologies et religion – Approches classiques, Paris 2001; Kippenberg, Hans G., Gewalt als Gottesdienst – Religionskriege im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, München 2008; Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Macht und Religion – Formen der Herrschaftslegitimierung in den antiken Religionen’ in Humanistische Bildung 1 (1977), pp. 1–31. 31 Rüpke, Jörg, Historische Religionswissenschaft – Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2007; Auffarth, Christoph et al. (eds), Wörterbuch der Religionen, Baden-­Baden 2007; Taylor, Mark C. (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago/London 1998.

9 Bibliography

9.1  Published material Ahsan, Abdullah al., The Organization of the Islamic Conference – An Introduction to an Islamic Political Institution, Herndon 1988 (Islamization of Knowledge). Altermatt, Urs and Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Pax Romana 1921–1981 – Gründung und Entwicklung, Freiburg 1981. Appleby, R. Scott, The Ambivalence of the Sacred – Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, Lanham/Boulder/New York 2000. Araujo, Robert John and Lucal, John A., Papal Diplomacy and the Quest for Peace – The United Nations from Pius XII to Paul VI, Philadelphia 2010. Arnal, William and McCutcheon, Russell T., The Sacred is the Profane – The Political Nature of ‘Religion’, Oxford 2013. Asad, Talal, Formations of the Secular – Christianity, Islam, Modernity, Stanford 2003. Auffarth, Christoph, Kippenberg, Hans G., and Michaels, Axel (eds), Wörterbuch der Religionen, Baden-­Baden 2007. Autiero, Antonio (ed.), Herausforderung Aggiornamento – Zur Rezeption des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, Altenberge 2000. Banchoff, Thomas (ed.), Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism, Oxford/New York 2007. Banchoff, Thomas and Wuthnow, Robert (eds), Religion and the Global Politics of Human Rights, Oxford/New York 2011. Barker, Eileen, The Making of a Moonie – Choice or Brainwashing?, Oxford 1985. Baubérot, Jean, Les Laïcités dans le monde, 7th edn, Paris 2009 (Que sais-­je?). Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, and Owens, Patricia, The Globalization of World Politics – An Introduction to International Relations, 5th edn, Oxford 2010. Bayly, Christopher A., The Birth of the Modern World 1780 to 1914 – Global Connections and Comparisons, Malden/Oxford 2004. Beckford, James A., Religious Organizations – A Trend Report and Bibliography, Mouton/The Hague/Paris 1975 (Current Sociology). Beckford, James A., The Trumpet of Prophecy – A Sociological Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oxford 1975. Beckford, James, Social Theory and Religion, Cambridge 2011. Behloul, Samuel M., Die Ordnung der Religion – Religionsgeschichte und Religionsgegenwart in diskurs-­analytischer Perspektive, Habilitation, Universität Luzern, 2009. Beigbeder, Yves, The Role and Status of International Humanitarian Volunteers and Organizations – The Right and Duty to Humanitarian Assistance, Dordrecht/Boston/ London 1991 (Legal Aspects of International Organization).

Bibliography   193 Bellah, Robert N., ‘Civil Religion in America’, Dædalus 96 (1967), pp. 1–21. Bellah, Robert N., ‘Can We Imagine a Global Civil Religion? (McDonald lecture, Center for the Study of Law and Religion, on 26 October 2007. Available at: http://cslr.law. emory.edu/fileadmin/media/PDFs/Lectures/Bellah.Alonzo_McDonald_Lecture.Can_ We_Imagine_ a_Global_Civil_ Religion.pdf (accessed 31 October 2015). Benavides, Gustavo, ‘North America’, in Alles, Gregory D. (ed.), Religious Studies – A Global View, London/New York, pp. 242–268. Bent, Ans J. van der, Christian Response in a World of Crisis: A Brief History of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Geneva 1986. Benthall, Jonathan and Bellion-­Jourdan, Jérôme, Charitable Crescent – Politics of Aid in the Muslim World, London/New York 2003. Berger, Julia, ‘Religious Nongovernmental Organizations – An Explanatory Analysis’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 14 (2003), pp. 15–40. Berger, Julia, ‘Les organisations non gouvernementales religieuses – Quelques pistes de recherche’, in Duriez, Bruno, Mabille, François, and Rouselet, Kathy (eds), Les ONG confessionelles – Religions et action internationale, Paris 2007, pp. 23–40. Berger, Peter L., ‘Ein Marktmodell zur Analyse ökumenischer Prozesse’, Internationales Jahrbuch für Religionssoziologie 1 (1965), pp. 235–249. Berger, Peter L., The Sacred Canopy – Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, New York 1967. Berger, Peter L., ‘The Desecularization of the World – A Global Overview’, in Berger, Peter L., The Desecularization of the World – Resurgent Religion and World Politics, Washington, DC 1999, pp. 1–18. Berger, Peter L. and Huntington, Samuel P. (ed.), Many Globalities – Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World, Oxford 2002. Berger, Peter L. (ed.), Between Relativism and Fundametalism – Religious Resources for a Middle Position, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2010. Berger, Peter L., Dialog zwischen religiösen Traditionen in einem Zeitalter der Relativität, Tübingen 2011. Bergunder, Michael, ‘Was ist Religion? – Kulturwissenschaftliche Überlegungen zum Gegenstand der Religionswissenschaft’, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 2012 (19), pp. 3–55. Berner, Ulrich, Untersuchungen zur Verwendung des Synkretismus-­Begriffes, Wiesbaden 1982 (Göttinger Orientforschungen: Reihe Grundlagen und Ergebnisse). Berner, Ulrich, ‘The Concept of Syncretism – An Instrument of Historical Insight/ Discovery?’, in Leopold, Anita M. and Jensen, Jeppe S. (eds), Syncretism in Religion – A Reader, London 2004, pp. 295–315. Betts, Raymond F., A History of Popular Culture – More of Everything, Faster, and Brighter, 2nd edn, New York/London 2012. Beyer, Peter (ed.), Religion im Prozess der Globalisierung, Würzburg 2001 (Religion in der Gesellschaft). Beyer, Peter, Religions in Global Society, London/New York 2006. Blin, François, Repères pour l’histoire de la Conférence des Organisations Internationales Catholiques (1927–2008), Grand-­Saconnex 2010. Bochinger, Christoph, ‘Religionen, Staat und Gesellschaft: Weiterführende Überlegungen’, in Bochinger, Christoph (ed.), Religionen, Staat und Gesellschaft – Die Schweiz zwischen Säkularisierung und religiöser Vielfalt, Zürich 2012, pp. 209–241. Boehle, Josef, Inter-­religious Co-­operation in a Global Age, Birmingham 2010.

194   Bibliography Boehle, Josef, ‘Religious NGOs at the UN and the Millenium Development Goals – An Introduction’, Global Change, Peace & Security 22 (2010), pp. 275–296. Bohman, James and Rehg, William, ‘Jürgen Habermas’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 edition). Available at: http://plato. stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/habermas/ (accessed 31 October 2015). Bohnsack, Ralf, Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung – Einführung in Qualitative Methoden, 8th edn, Opladen/Farmington Hills 2010. Boli, John and Brewington, David V., ‘Religious Organizations’, in Beyer, Peter and Beaman, Lori (eds), Religion, Globalization and Culture, Leiden/Boston 2007, pp. 203–231 (International Studies in Religion and Society). Boli, John and Thomas, George M., ‘INGOS and the Organization of World Culture’, in Boli, John and Thomas, George M. (eds), Constructing World Culture – International Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875, Stanford 1999, pp. 13–49. Bonino, José Míguez, ‘A Study of Some Recent Roman Catholic and Protestant Thought on the Relation of Scripture and Tradition’, New York 1960 (Dissertation: Union Theological Seminary). Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Genèse et structure du champ religieux’, Revue française de sociologie 12 (1971), pp. 295–334. Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Une interpretation de la théorie de la religion selon Max Weber’, Archives européennes de Sociologie 12 (1971), pp. 3–21. Brandt, Ahasver von, Werkzeuge des Historikers – Eine Einführung in die Historischen Hilfswissenschaften, 13th edn, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln 1992. Brenner-­Wilczek, Sabine, Cepl-­Kaufmann, Gertrude, and Plassmann, Max, Einführung in die moderne Archivarbeit, Darmstadt 2006. Briggs, John, Oduyoye, Merca A., and Tsetsis, Georges (eds), A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 2: 1968–2000, Geneva 2004. Briggs, John, Oduyoye, Mercy A., and Tsetsis, Georges (eds), A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 3: 1968–2000, Geneva 2004. Brocker, Manfred (ed.), Geschichte des politischen Denkens – Ein Handbuch, Frankfurt am Main 2007. Bromley, David G. (ed.), Krishna Consciousness in the West, Lewisburg 1989. Bruce, Lincoln, Holy Terrors – Thinking about Religion after September 11, Chicago and London 2003. Bruce, Steve, Secularization – In Defence of an Unfashionable Theory, Oxford 2011. Brundage, Anthony, Going to the Sources – A Guide to Historical Research and Writing, 4th edn, Wheeling 2008. Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society – A Study of Order in World Politics, Columbia 1977. Buss, Doris and Herman, Didi, Globalizing Family Values – The Christian Right in International Politics, Minneapolis/London 2003. Caillé, Alain, ‘Nouvelles thèses sur la religion’, Revue de M.A.U.S.S. 22 (2003), pp. 318–327. Caillé, Alain, Théorie anti-­utilitariste de l’action – fragmentes d’une sociologie générale, Paris 2009. Calhoun, Craig, Juergensmeyer, Mark, and Van Antwerpen, Jonathan, Rethinking Secularism, Oxford/London 2011. Carrette, Jeremy and Trigeaud, Sophie-­Hélène, ‘The Religion-­secular in International Politics – The Case of “Religious” NGOs at the United Nations’, in Abby, Day, Vincett, Giselle and Cotter, Christopher R. (eds), Social Identities between the Sacred and the Secular, Farnham 2013, pp. 7–22 (Religion and Society).

Bibliography   195 Casanova, José, Public Religions in the Modern World, Chicago/London 1994. Casanova, José, ‘Catholic and Muslim Politics in Comparative Perspective’, Taiwan Journal of Democracy 1 (2005), pp. 89–108. Casanova, José, ‘Westliche christliche Säkularisierung und Globalisierung’, in Casanova, José (ed.), Europas Angst vor der Religion, Berlin 2009, pp. 83–119. Casanova, José, ‘From Modernization to Secularization to Globalization – An Autobiographical Self-­Reflection’, in Coleman, Simon and Sarré, Ramon (eds), Religion and Society – Volume 2: Advances in Research, New York 2011, pp. 25–36. Chaves Mark, Congregations in America, Cambridge/London 2004. Chimombo, Moira P.F. and Roseberry, Robert L., The Power of Discourse – An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, New York/London 1998. Clarke, Gerard, ‘Faith Matters – Faith-­based Organizations, Civil Society, and International Development’, Journal of International Development 18 (2006), pp. 835–848. Clarke, Gerard and Jennings, Michael (eds), Development, Civil Society and Faith-­Based Organizations – Bridging the Sacred and the Secular, London 2008 (International Political Economy). Clarke, Peter, New Religions in Global Perspective – A Study of Religious Change in the Modern World, London/New York 2006. Claude, Inis L. Jr, Swords into Plowshares – The Problems and Prospects of International Organizations, New York 1956. Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (ed.), Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1946–1947, Geneva 1947, pp. 8–10. Conférence des Organisations Internationales Catholiques (ed.), Les Catholiques dans la vie internationale, Paris 1957. Dalai Lama, Beyond Religion – Ethics for a Whole World, London/Sydney/Auckland 2012. Dark, Ken R. (ed.), Religion and International Relations, Houndmills/Basingstoke 2000. Dembinski, Ludwig, ‘The General Secretary “Who Came in from the Cold” . . .’, in Trisconi, Michela (ed.), Mémoires Engagées – 76e–50e Anniversaire Pax Romana ICMICA/ MIIC, Fribourg (Switzerland) 1997, pp. 89–97. Derrida, Jacques and Vattimo, Gianni, Die Religion, Frankfurt am Main 2001. DeRuvo, Fred, Powerfully Dark Spiritual Forces, the Global Elite, and the United Nations, Scotts Valley 2013. Dobbelaere, Karel, Secularization – An Analysis at Three Levels, Brüssels 2002. Donovan, George F., The Limburg Declarations, in: Pax Romana 5,6 (1951), p. 3. Doyle, Michael W., Liberal Peace – Selected Essays, Abingdon/New York 2012. Drinan, Robert F. (ed.), The Right to be Educated Studies To Commemorate the Twentieth Anniversary of the Adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948, Washington, DC 1968. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., Die Vielfalt der Moderne, Weilerswist 2000. Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (ed.), Multiple Modernities, Brunswick 2002. Eliade, Mircea, The Sacred and the Profane – The Nature of Religion, New York 1959. Elsas, Christoph, ‘Human Rights’, in Elsas, Christoph (ed.), Tradition and Translation – Zum Problem der interkulturellen Übersetzbarkeit religiöser Phänomene, Festschrift für Carsten Colpe zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin/New York 1994, pp. 435–451. Epps, Dwain, ‘The Last Seven Years’, in N.A., Report of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs 1970–1973, Geneva/New York 1973, pp. 34–37. Epps, Dwain, ‘Der ökumenische Beitrag’, in Kirchenamt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (ed.), Bedrohung der Religionsfreiheit – Erfahrungen von Christen in verschiedenen Ländern, Hannover 2003, pp. 16–24 (EKD Texte).

196   Bibliography Fairclough, Norman, Analysing Discourse – Textual Analysis for Social Research, London/New York 2003. Fairclough, Norman, Language and Power, 3rd edn, London 2014. Favret-­Saada, Jeanne, Jeux d’ombres sur la scѐne de l’ONU – Droit humains et Laicité, Paris 2010. Featherstone, Mike (ed.), Global Culture – Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, London/Thousand Oaks 1990. Fitschen Thomas, ‘Vereinte Nationen und nichtstaatliche Organisationen’, in Volger, Helmut (ed.), Grundlagen und Strukturen der Vereinten Nationen, München/Wien 2007, pp. 309–329. Fitzgerald, Thomas E., The Ecumenical Movement – An Introductory History, Westport/ London 2004 (Contributions to the Study of Religion). Fitzgerald, Timothy, The Ideology of Religious Studies, New York/Oxford 2000. Fitzgerald, Timothy, Religion and Politics in International Relations – The Modern Myth, London/New York 2011. Flick, Uwe (ed.), Qualitative Sozialforschung – Eine Einführung, Reinbek/Berlin 2007. Formerand, Jacques (ed.), Historical Dictionary of the United Nations, Lanham/Toronto/ Plymouth 2007 (Historical Dictionaries of International Organizations Series). Forst, Rainer and Günther, Klaus (eds), Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen – Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, Frankfurt am Main/New York 2011 (Normative Orders). Foucault, Michel, Les mots et les choses – Une archéologie des sciences humaines, Paris 1966 (Bibliothèque des sciences humaines). Frankenberry, Nancy K. and Penner, Hans H., ‘Clifford Geertz’s Long-­lasting Moods, Motivations, and Metaphysical Conceptions’, Journal of Religion 79 (1999), pp. 617–640. Frey, Harold C. (ed.), A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 2: 1948–1968, Geneva 1970. Frieling, Reinhard, Der Weg des ökumenischen Gedankens, Göttingen 1992 (Zugänge zur Kirchengeschichte). Fritzsche, K. Peter, Menschenrechte – Eine Einführung mit Dokumenten, 2nd edn, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 2009. Gabriel, Karl, ‘Jenseits von Säkularisierung und Wiederkehr der Götter’, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschehen 52 (2008), pp. 9–15. Gabriel, Karl, Gärtner, Christel, and Pollack, Detlef (eds) Umstrittene Säkularisierung – Soziologische und historische Analysen zur Differenzierung von Religion und Politik, Berlin 2012. Gabriel, Karl, Spieß, Christian, and Winkler, Katja (eds), Die Anerkennung der Religionsfreiheit auf dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil – Texte zur Interpretation eines Lernprozesses, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich (Katholizismus zwischen Religionsfreiheit und Gewalt). Gärtner, Christel, Gabriel, Karl, and Reuter, Hans Richard, Religion bei Meinungsmachern – Eine Untersuchung bei Elitejournalisten in Deutschland, Wiesbaden 2012. Gauthier, François and Martikainen, Tuomas (eds), Religion in Comsumer Society – Brands, Consumers, Markets, Farnham/Burlington 2013. Gee, James Paul, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis – Theory and Method, 3rd edn, New York/London 2001. Geertz, Clifford, ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, in Banton, Michael (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, London 1966, pp. 1–46.

Bibliography   197 Geertz, Clifford, The Interpretation of Cultures, New York 1973. Ghandour, Abdel-­Rahman, Jihad Humanitaire – Enquête sur les ONG Islamiques, Paris 2002. Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge 1981. Gilson, Etienne, ‘Our Task in the New Christendom’, Pax Romana 1,4 (1947), p. 1. Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Macht und Religion – Formen der Herrschaftslegitimierung in den antiken Religionen’, Humanistische Bildung 1 (1977), pp. 1–31. Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Kraft, Macht, Herrschaft – Zur Religionsgeschichte politischer Begriffe’, in Gladigow, Burkhard (ed.) Staat und Religion, Düsseldorf 1981, pp. 7–22. Gladigow, Burkhard and Kippenberg, Hans G. (eds) Neue Ansätze in der Religionswissenschaft, München 1988 (Forum Religionswissenschaft). Gladigow, Burkhard, ‘Gegenstände und wissenschaftlicher Kontext von Religionswissenschaft’, in Cancik, Hubert, Gladigow, Burkhard and Laubscher, Matthias (eds), Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, Bd. 1, Stuttgart 1988, pp. 26–40. Gladigow, Brukhard, Religionswissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft, Stuttgart 2005 (Religionswissenschaft heute). Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory – Strategies for Qualitative Research, Piscataway 1967. Gläser, Jochen and Laudel, Grit, Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, 4th edn, Wiesbaden 2010. Glendon, Mary Ann, A World Made New – Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, New York 2001. Goldthorpe, John H., On Sociology – Volume One: Critique and Program, 2nd edn, Oxford 2007 (Studies in Social Inequality). Goodall, Norman (ed.), The Uppsala Report 1968 – Official Report of the Fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches Uppsala July 4–20, 1968, Geneva 1968. Gorman, Robert F., Great Debates at the United Nations – An Encyclopedia of Fifty Key Issues 1945–2000, Westport/London 2001. Graf, Friedrich W., Die Wiederkehr der Götter – Religion in der modernen Kultur, München 2007. Grubb, Sir Kenneth, Crypts of Power – An Autobiography, London/Sydney/Auckland/ Toronto 1971. Gutiérrez, Gustavo, Teología de la liberación – Perspectivas, Lima 1971. Haase, Michael, International Human Rights – A Comprehensive Introduction, London/ New York 2008. Habermas, Jürgen, Glauben und Wissen, Frankfurt am Main 2001. Hackett, Rosalind I.J., ‘Human Rights: An Important Challenging New Field for the Study of Religion’, in Antes, Peter, Geertz, Armin W., and Warne, Randi R. (eds), New Approaches to the Study of Religion 2 – Textual, Comparative, Sociological, and Cognitive Approaches, Berlin/New York 2008, pp. 165–191. Hadden, Jeffrey K., ‘Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory’, Social Forces 65 (1987), pp. 587–611. Hagen, Hermann and Kosch, Wilhelm, Die Studentenverbindungen im katholischen Deutschland, München 1924 (Akademische Bücherei). Haker, Hille, Susin, Luiz C., and Metogo, Éloi M, ‘Postkoloniale Theologie’, Concilium 49 (2013), pp. 131–134. Halecki, Oskar, ‘La Mission de l’Europe’, Pax Romana 7, 4 (1953), p. 2. Hanson, Eric O., Religion and Politics in the International System Today, Cambridge/ New York/Melbourne 2006.

198   Bibliography Haynes, Jeffrey, ‘Transnational Religious Actors and International Politics’, Third World Quarterly 22 (2001), pp. 143–158. Haynes, Jeffrey, Introduction to International Relations and Religion, Harlow/London/ New York 2007. Haynes, Jeffrey, Introduction to International Relations and Religion, 2nd edn, Harlow/ London/New York 2013. Haynes, Jeffrey and Henning, Anja, ‘Introduction’, in Haynes, Jeffrey and Henning, Anja (eds), Religious Actors in the Public Sphere – Means, Objectives and Effects, Milton Park/New York 2011, pp. 1–13 (Studies in Religion and Politics). Haynes, Jeffrey, Hough, Peter, Malik, Shahin, and Pettiford, Lloyd, World Politics – Part Three: International Relations Theories, Harlow 2010, pp. 112–231. Heiler, Friedrich (ed.), Die Religionen der Menschheit in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, Stuttgart 1959. Heimbach-­Steins, Marianne and Bielefeldt, Heiner (eds), Religionen und Religionsfreiheit – Menschenrechtliche Perspektiven im Spannungsfeld von Mission und Konversion, Würzburg 2010 (Bamberger Interreligiöse Studien). Herren, Madeleine, Internationale Organisationen seit 1865 – Eine Globalgeschichte der internationalen Ordnung, Darmstadt 2009 (Geschichte Kompakt). Hervieu-­Léger, Danièle, La religion pour mémoire, Paris 1993. Hervieu-­Léger, Danièle and Willaime, Jean-­Paul (eds), Sociologies et religion – Approches classiques, Paris 2001 (Sociologie d’aujourd’hui). Hildebrandt, Mathias and Brocker, Manfred (eds), Der Begriff der Religion – Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven, Wiesbaden 2008 (Politik und Religion). Hjelm, Titus, ‘Discourse Analysis’, in Stausberg, Michael and Engler, Steven (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, London/New York, 2012, pp. 125–150. Hobsbawn, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge 1983. Hogg, William R., Ecumenical Foundations – A History of the International Missionary Council and its Nineteenth-­Century Background, Eugene 2002. Hoover, Stewart M., Religion in the Media Age, London/New York 2006 (Media, Religion, Culture). Huber, Max, ‘An International Ethos’, The Ecumenical Review 8 (1956), pp. 402–405. Hudson, Darril, The Ecumenical Movement in World Affairs, London 1969. Hudson, Darril, The World Council of Churches in International Affairs, Leighton 1977. Hunt, Lynn, Inventing Human Rights – A History, New York/London 2007. Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York/London/Toronto 1996. Hurd, Elizabeth, S., The Politics of Secularism in International Relations, Princeton/ Woodstock 2008. Inboden, William, Religion and Amer­ican Foreign Policy, 1945–1960 – The Soul of Containment, Cambridge/New York/Melborne 2008. Jackson, Robert and Sorensen, Georg, Introduction to International Relations – Theories and Approaches, 4th edn, Oxford 2010. Jäger, Siegfried, Kritische Diskursanalyse – Eine Einführung, 6th edn, Münster 2012. Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton 1976. Joas, Hans, Braucht der Mensch Religion? – Über Erfahrungen der Selbsttranszendenz, Freiburg im Breisgau 2004. Jödicke, Ansgar (ed.), Religious Education, Politics, the State, and Society, Würzburg 2013 (Religion in der Gesellschaft).

Bibliography   199 Johnston, Douglas, Faith-­based Diplomacy – Trumping Realpolitik, Oxford/New York 2003. Jolly, Richard, Emmerij, Louis, and Weiss, Thomas G., UN Ideas That Changed the World, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2009 (United Nations Intellectual History Project). Juergensmeyer, Mark, The New Cold War? – Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1993 (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society). Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God – The Global Rise of Religious Violence, 3rd edn, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 2003. Kehrer, Günter (ed.), Das Entstehen einer neuen Religion – das Beispiel der Vereinigungskirche, München 1981. Kehrer Günter, Organisierte Religion, Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln/Mainz 1982. Kehrer, Günter, Einführung in die Religionssoziologie, Darmstadt 1988 (Die Theologie). Kelle, Udo and Kluge, Susann, Vom Einzelfall zum Typus – Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung, Opladen 1999 (Qualitative Sozialforschung). Keller, Reiner, ‘Diskurse und Dispositive analysieren – Die Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse als Beitrag zu einer wissensanalytischen Profilierung der Diskursforschung’, Historical Social Research 33 (2008), pp. 73–107. Keller, Reiner, Diskursforschung – Eine Einführung für Sozialwissenschaftlerinnen, 4th edn, Wiesbaden 2011 (Qualitative Sozialforschung). Keller, Reiner, ‘The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse’, Human Studies 24 (2011), pp. 43–65. Keller, Reiner, Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse – Grundlegung eines Forschungsprogramms, 3rd edn, Wiesbaden 2011. Keller, Reiner, Schneider, Werner, and Viehöver, Willy (eds), Diskurs – Macht – Subjekt – Theorie und Empirie von Subjektivierung in der Diskursforschung, Wiesbaden 2012 (Interdisziplinäre Diskursforschung). Kennedy, Paul, The Parliament of Man – The Past, Present and Future of the United Nations, New York 2007. Kepel, Gilles, La Revanche de Dieu – Chrétiens, juifs et musulmans à la reconquête du monde, Paris 1991. Kille, Kent J. (ed.), The UN Secretary General and Moral Authority – Ethics and Religion in International Leadership, Washington, DC 2007. Kille, Kent J., ‘The Secular Pope’, in Kille, Kent J. (ed.), The UN Secretary-­General and Moral Authority – Ethics and Religion in International Leadership, Washington, DC 2007, pp. 337–353. Kippenberg, Hans G., ‘Diskursive Religionswissenschaft – Gedanken zu einer Religionswissenschaft, die weder auf einer allgemein gültigen Definition von Religion noch auf einer Überlegenheit von Wissenschaft basiert’, in Gladigow, Burkhard and Kippenberg, Hans G. (eds), Neue Ansätze in der Religionswissenschaft, München 1983, pp. 9–28 (Forum Religionswissenschaft). Kippenberg, Hans G., Gewalt als Gottesdienst – Religionskriege im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, München 2008. Kippenberg, Hans G., Violence as Worship – Religious Wars in the Age of Globalization, Stanford 2011. Kippenberg, Hans G. and Stuckrad, Kocku von, Einführung in die Religionswissenschaft, München 2003.

200   Bibliography Kippenberg, Hans G., Lehmann, Karsten, and Nagel, Alexander-­Kenneth, ‘Varieties of Deprivatization – Revisiting Religious Communities in the Public Sphere’, Journal of Religion in Europe 6 (2013), pp. 133–142. Kippenberg, Hans G., Rüpke, Jörg, and Stuckrad, Kocku von (eds). Europäische Religionsgeschichte, Stuttgart 2009. Klinger, Elmar and Zerfay, Rolf (eds), Die Kirche der Laien – Eine Weichenstellung des Konzils, Würzburg 1987. Knoblauch, Hubert, Populäre Religion – Auf dem Weg in eine spirituelle Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main/New York 2001. Knoblauch, Hubert, Qualitative Religionsforschung – Religionsethnographie in der eigenen Gesellschaft, Paderborn 2003 (Uni Taschenbücher). Knox, Geoffrey (ed.), Religion and Public Policy at the UN, Washington, DC (2002) (Religion Counts Report). Koilpillat, J. Victor, ‘Editorial’, Ecumenical Review 27 (1975), pp. 93–96. Korey, William, NGOs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – ‘A Curious Grapevine’, New York/Basingstoke 1998. Koshy, Ninian, Churches in the World of Nations – International Politics and the Mission and Ministry of the Churches, Geneva 1994. Krasno, Jean E. (ed.), United Nations – Confronting the Challenges of a Global Society, Colorado/London 2004. Krüger, Oliver, Die mediale Religion – Probleme und Perspektiven der religionswissenschaftlichen und wissenssoziologischen Medienforschung, Bielefeld 2012 (Religion und Medien). Kunter, Katharina and Schjørring, Jens H. (eds), Changing Relations between Churches in Europe and Africa – The Internationalization of Christianity and Politics in the 20th Century, Wiesbaden 2008. Kurth, Stefan and Lehmann, Karsten, Religionen erforschen – Kulturwissenschaftliche Methoden in der Religionswissenschaft, Wiesbaden 2011. Lagrée Jacqueline and Portier, Philippe (eds), La modernité contre la religion? – Pour une nouvelle approche de la laïcité, Rennes 2010 (Sciences des Religions). Lamnek, Siegfried, Qualitative Sozialforschung – Lehrbuch, 5th edn, Weinheim/Basel 2010. Lechner, Frank J. and Boli, John (eds), The Globalization Reader, 3rd edn, Malden/ Oxford 2008. Leeuw, Gerardus van der, Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Religion, 2nd edn, Darmstadt1961. Lehmann, Hartmut, Säkularisierung – Der europäische Sonderweg in Sachen Religion, Göttingen 2004. Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Interdependenzen zwischen Religionsgemeinschaften und internationaler Politik – Religionswissenschaftliche Anmerkungen zu politikwissenschaftlichen Religionskonzeptionen’, Zeitschrift für international Beziehungen 17 (2010), pp. 75–99. Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Zur Etablierung von Religionen im Kontext der Vereinten Nationen – Ein Überblick’, Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft 11 (2010), pp. 1–20. Lehmann, Karsten, ‘Etablierung als Nicht-­Regierungsorganisation – Zum frühen Engagement der Quäker im Kontext der UNO’, Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft 13 (2012), pp. 35–52. Lehmann, Karsten and Jödicke, Ansgar (ed.), Einheit und Differenz in der Religionswissenschaft – Zu einem Mehr-­Ebenen Modell von Religion – Würzburg in print (‘Diskurs Religion’).

Bibliography   201 Lenoir, Frédéric, La rencontre du bouddhisme et de l’Occident, Paris, 1999. Lerner, Natan, Religion, Belief, and International Human Rights, New York 2000 (Religion and Human Rights). Lie, Trygve, In the Case of Peace – Seven Years with the United Nations, New York 1954. Liedhegener, Antonius and Werkner, Ines-­Jacqueline (eds), Religion zwischen Zivilgesellschaft und politischem System – Befunde – Positionen – Perspektiven, Wiesbaden 2011 (Politik und Religion). Lincoln, Bruce, Discourse and the Construction of Society – Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification, Harvard 1989. Linden, Ian, Global Catholicism – Diversity and Change since Vatican II, New York 2009. Little, David (ed.), Peacemakers in Action – Profiles of Religion in Conflict Resolution, Cambridge/New York/Melborne 2007. Lossky, Nichola, Bonino, José M., and Pobee, John (eds), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, 2nd edn, Geneva 2002. Lübbe, Hermann, Säkularisierung – Geschichte eines ideenpolitischen Begriffs, Freiburg/ München 1965. Luchesi, Brigitte and Stuckrad, Kocku von (eds), Religion im kulturellen Diskurs – Festschrift für Hans G. Kippenberg zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2004. Luckmann, Thomas, The Invisible Religion – The Problem of Religion in Modern Society, New York/London 1967. Luckmann, Thomas, ‘The Communicative Construction of Reality and Sequential Analysis – A personal Reminiscence’, Qualitative Sociological Review 9 (2013), pp. 40–46. Lüddeckens, Dorothea and Walthert, Rafael (eds), Fluide Religion – Neue religiöse Bewegungen im Wandel theoretischer und empirischer Systematisierung, Bielefeld 2010 (Sozialtheorie). Luhmann, Niklas, Funktion der Religion, Frankfurt am Main 1977. Luhmann, Niklas, Die Religion der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main 2002. Lukas Vischer, ‘Committed to the Transformation of the World – Where Are we 40 Years after the World Conference on Church and Society in Geneva (1966)’, Ecumenical Review 59 (2007), pp. 27–47. MacFarlane, S. Neil and Khong, Yuen Foong, Human Security and the UN – A Critical History, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2006 (United Nations Intellectual History Project). McCutcheon, Russell T., Manufacturing Religion – The Discourse on Sui Generis Religion and Politics of Nostalgia, Oxford 1997. McCutcheon, Russell T., Critics Not Caretakers – Redescribing the Public Study of Religion, New York 2001 (Issues in the Study of Religion). McCutcheon, Russell T., ‘Critical Trends in the Study of Religion in the United States’, in Antes, Peter, Geertz, Armin, and Warne, Randi R. (eds), New Approaches to the Study of Religion 1 – Regional, Critical, and Historical Approaches, Berlin/New York 2008, pp. 317–343. Machin, David and Mayr, Andrea, How to do Critical Discourse Analysis, London/Thousand Oaks 2012. Maritain, Jacques, ‘Das Naturrecht und die Menschenrechte’, Pax Romana 5, 2 (1951), p. 1. Marshall, Katherine, Global Institutions of Religion – Ancient Movers, Modern Shakers, London/New York 2013 (Global Institutions).

202   Bibliography Martens, Kerstin, NGOs and the United Nations – Institutionalization, Professionalization and Adaption, London 2005. Martin, Bernice, ‘Contrasting Modernities: “Postsecular” Europe and Enspirited Latin America’, in Molendijk, Arie L., Beaumont, Justin, and Jedan, Christoph (eds), Exploring the Postsecular: The Religious, the Political and the Urban, Leiden and Boston 2010, pp. 25–32. Martin, David, The Religious and the Secular – Studies in Secularization, New York 1969. Martin, David, Does Christianity Cause War?, Oxford 1997. With references to: Martin, David, Pacifism, London 1965 (International Library of Sociology – Political Sociology). Martin, David, A General Theory of Secularization, Oxford 1978. Martin, David, On Secularization – Towards a Revised General Theory, Aldershot/Burlington 2005. Martin, David and Catto, Rebecca, ‘The Religious and the Secular’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, London/New York 2012, pp. 373–390. Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (eds), Fundamentalism Observed, Chicago 1992. Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (eds), Accounting for Fundamentalism – The Dynamic Character of Movements, Chicago 1994. Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (eds), Fundamentalism Comprehended, Chicago 1995. Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (eds), Fundamentalism and the State – Remaking Polities, Economies, and Militance, Chicago 1996. Marty, Martin E. and Appleby, R. Scott (eds), Fundamentalism and Society – Reclaiming the Sciences, the Family, and Education, Chicago 1997. Marwick, Arthur, The Sixties – Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, c.1958–c.1974, Oxford/New York 1998. Masuzawa, Tomoko, The Invention of World Religions – Or, How European Universalism was Presented in the Language of Pluralism, Chicago/London 2005. Meisler, Stanley, United Nations – The First Fifty Years, New York 1995. Melady, Thomas P., The Ambassador’s Story – The United States and the Vatican in World Affairs, Huntington 1994. Metzler, Gabriele, Einführung in das Studium der Zeitgeschichte, Paderborn 2004. Michaels, Axel (ed.), Klassiker der Religionswissenschaft – Von Friedrich Schleiermacher bis Mircea Eliade, München 2004. Micklethwait, John and Wooldridge, Adrian, God is Back – How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World, London 2009. Milot, Micheline, Portier, Philippe and Willaime, Jean-­Paul (eds), Pluralisme religieux et citoyenneté, Rennes 2010 (Sciences des Religions). Minkenberg, Michael and Willems, Ulrich (eds), Politik und Religion, Wiesbaden 2003 (Sonderheft der Politischen Vierteljahresschrift). Monika Schrimpf, Self-­Cultivation and Guidance to Living in Contemporary Japanese New Religions – A Discourse Analytical Approach, Habilitation, Universität Bayreuth, 2010. Mörschel, Tobias (ed.), Papsttum und Politik – Eine Institution zwischen geistlicher Macht und politischer Gewalt, Freiburg/Basel/Wien 2007. Murken, Sebastian and Namini, Sussan, ‘Psychosoziale Konflikte im Prozess des selbst gewählten Beitritts zu neuen religiösen Gemeinschaften’, Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft 12 (2004), pp. 141–187.

Bibliography   203 Murphy, Craig N., International Organizations and Industrial Change – Global Governance Since 1850, Cambridge/Oxford 1994 (Europe and the International Order). Murphy, Tim, ‘Discourse’, in Braun, Willi and McCutcheon, Russell (eds), Guide to the Study of Religion, London/New York 2000, pp. 396–408. Namini, Sussan and Murken, Sebastian, ‘Self-­chosen Involvement in New Religious Movements (NRMs) – Well-­being and Mental Health from a Longitudinal Perspective’, Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 12 (2009), pp. 561–585. Nehring, Andreas, ‘Das “Ende der Missionsgeschichte” – Mission als kulturelles Paradigma zwischen klassischer Missionstheologie und postkolonialer Theoriebildung’, Berliner Theologische Zeitschrift 27 (2010), pp. 161–193. Nell-­Breuning, Oswald von, Soziallehre der Kirche – Erläuterungen der lehramtlichen Dokumente, Wien 1977. Nell-­Breuning, Oswald von and Schasching, Johannes, Texte der katholischen Soziallehre – Die sozialen Rundschreiben der Päpste und andere kirchliche Dokumente, Köln 2007. Ney, Harold C., A History of the Ecumenical Movement – Volume 2: 1948–1968, Geneva 1970. Niebuhr, Reinhold, Christian Realism and Political Problems, New York City 1953. Nohl, Arnd-­Michael, Interview und Dokumentarische Methode – Anleitungen für die Forschungspraxis, 4th edn, Wiesbaden 2012. Nolde, O. Frederick, The Churches and the Nations, Philadelphia 1970. Normand, Roger and Zaidi, Sarah, Human Rights at the UN – The Political History of Universal Justice, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2008 (United Nations Intellectual History Project). Norris, Pippa and Inglehart, Ronald, Sacred and Secular – Religion and Politics Worldwide, Cambridge 2004 (Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion, and Politics). Nurser, John, For all Peoples and all Nations – Christian Churches and Human Rights, Geneva 2005 (Advancing Human Rights). O’Hanson, Eric Religion and Politics in the International System Today, Cambridge/New York/Melbourne 2006. Opgenoorth, Ernst and Schulz, Günther, Einführung in das Studium der Neueren Geschichte, 7th edn, Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 2010. Osterhammel, Jürgen and Peterson, Niels P., Geschichte der Globalisierung – Dimensionen, Prozesse, Epochen, München 2003. Pax Romana (ed.), The Holy See – Face of Another Globalization, Barcelona 2008. Peiponen, Matti, Ecumenical Action in World Politics – The Creation of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA), 1945–1949, Helsinki 2012 (Schriften der Luther-­Agricola-Gesellschaft). Pérez de Cuéllar, Javier, Pilgrimage for Peace – A Secretary-­General’s Memoir, New York 1997. Petersen, Marie Juul (2010), ‘International Religious NGOs at the United Nations – A Study of a Group of Religious Organization’, The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance 2010. Available at: http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/847 (last accessed 31 October 2015). Petito, Fabio and Hatzopoulos, Pavlos (eds), Religion in International Relations – The Return from Exile, New York/Basingstoke 2003 (Culture and Religion in International Relations). Plassmann, Max, Einführung in die moderne Archivarbeit, Darmstadt 2006. Plümper, Thomas, ‘Academic Heavy-­weights – The “Relevance” of Political Science Journals’, European Political Science 6 (2007), pp. 41–50.

204   Bibliography Polak, Regina (ed.), Megatrend Religion? – Neue Religiositäten in Europa, Ostfildern 2002. Pollack, Detlef, Rückkehr des Religiösen? – Studien zum religiösen Wandel in Deutschland und Europa II, Tübingen 2009. Pries, Ludger (ed.), New Transnational Social Spaces – International Migration and Transnational Companies in the Early Twenty-­first Century, Milton Park/New York 2001 (Routledge Research in Transnationalism). Pries, Ludger, Transnationalisierung – Theorie und Empirie grenzüberschreitender Vergesellschaftung, Wiesbaden 2010. Przyborski, Aglaja and Wohlrab-­Sahr, Monika, Qualitative Sozialforschung, Ein Arbeitsbuch, 3rd edn, München 2010 (Lehr- und Handbücher der Soziologie). Pyle, Ralph E., Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment, Westport 1996 (Religion in the Age of Transformation). Ragin, Charles C., ‘Introduction: Cases of “What is a case?” ’, in Ragin, Charles C. and Becker, Howard S. (eds), What is a Case? – Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge 1992, pp. 1–17. Reus-­Smit, Christian and Snidal, Duncan (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford 2008. Riaz, Ali (ed.), Religion and Politics in South Asia, London/New York 2010. Riesebrodt, Martin, Fundamentalismus als patriarchalische Protestbewegung – Amerikanische Protestanten (1910–1928) und iranische Schiiten (1961–1971) im Vergleich, Tübingen 1990. Riesebrodt, Martin, Religion in the Modern World: Between Secularization and Resurgence, San Domenico di Fiesole 2014 (Max Weber Lectures Series at the European University Institute). Rittberger, Volker, Mogler, Martin, and Zangl, Bernhard, Vereinte Nationen und Weltordnung – Zivilisierung der internationalen Politik?, Opladen 1997. Robertson, Roland and White, Katheleen E., Globalization – Specialized Applications and Resistance to Globalization, London/New York 2003 (Critical Concepts in Sociology). Rossi, Joseph S., Amer­ican Catholics and the Formation of the United Nations, Lanham/ New York/London 1993 (Melville Studies in Church History). Rossi, Joseph S., Uncharted Territory – The Amer­ican Catholic Church at the United Nations, 1946–1972, Washington, DC 2006. Rudolph, Kurt, ‘Das Problem der Autonomie und Integrität der Religionswissenschaft’, in Kurt Rudolph (ed.), Geschichte und Probleme der Religionswissenschaft, Leiden/ New York/Köln 1992, pp. 37–66 (Studies in the History of Religions). Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber and Piscatori, James (eds), Transnational Religion and Fading State, Boulder/Oxford 1997. Rüpke, Jörg, Historische Religionswissenschaft – Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2007 (Religionswissenschaft heute). Schieder, Siegfried and Spindler, Manuela (eds), Theorien der internationalen Beziehungen, 3rd edn, Opladen/Farmington Hills 2010. Schimmelfennig, Frank, Internationale Politik, 3rd edn, Paderborn 2013. Schlieter, Jens, ‘Einleitung’, in Schlieter, Jens (eds), Was ist Religion? – Texte von Cicero bis Luhmann, Stuttgart 2010, pp. 9–27. Schmidt, Thomas M. and Pitschmann, Annette (eds), Religion und Säkularisierung – Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch, Stuttgart/Weimar 2014. Schnettler, Bernt, ‘Alltag und Religion’, in Weyel, Birgit and Gräb, Wilhelm (eds), Religion in der modernen Lebenswelt – Erscheinungsformen und Reflexionsperspektiven, Göttingen 2006, pp. 84–100.

Bibliography   205 Schnettler, Bernt, ‘Soziologie der Religiösen Erfahrung und Spiritualität’, in Baier, Karl and Sinkovits, Josef (eds), Spiritualität und moderne Lebenswelt, Wien/Berlin 2007, pp. 45–69 (Austria: Forschung und Wissenschaft). Schulze, Peter M., ‘Nichtstaatliche Organisationen (NGOs)’, in Volger, Helmut (ed.) Lexikon der Vereinten Nationen, München/Wien 2000, pp. 397–405. Seal, Clive (ed.), Researching Society and Culture, 2nd edn, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore 2004. Seiwert, Hubert, ‘Religionswissenschaft – Theoriebildung und Empiriebezug’, Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 61 (1977), pp. 1–18. Seyfarth, Constans, ‘Alltag und Charisma bei Max Weber – Eine Studie zur Grundlegung der “verstehenden” Soziologie”,’ in Sprondel, Walter and Grathoff, Richard (eds), Alfred Schütz und die Idee des Alltags in den Sozialwissenschaften, Stuttgart 1979, pp. 155–177. Seyfarth, Constans, ‘Über Max Webers Beitrag zur Theorie professionellen beruflichen Handelns, zugleich eine Vorstudie zum Verständnis seiner Soziologie als Praxis’, in Weiß, Johannes (ed.) Max Weber heute. Erträge und Probleme der Forschung, Frankfurt am Main 1989. Shani, Giorgio, ‘Transnational Religious Actors in International Relations’, in Haynes, Jeffrey (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics, Milton Park/New York 2009, pp. 308–321. Silverman, David (ed.), Qualitative Research – Issues of Theory, Method and Practice, 3rd edn, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi 2011. Smith, Jonathan Z., Imagining Religion – From Babylon to Jonestown, Chicago/London 1982. Snyder, Jack (ed.), Religion and International Relations Theory, New York 2011 (Religion, Culture and Public Life). Spickard, James V., ‘Human Rights through A Religious Lens: A Programmatic Argument’, Social Compass 49 (2002), pp. 227–238. Stausberg, Michael and Engler, Steven (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, London/New York 2011. Stokke, Olav, The UN and Development – From Aid to Cooperation, Bloomington/ Indianapolis 2009 (United Nations Intellectual History Project). Stolz, Fritz, Religion und Rekonstruktion – Ausgewählte Aufsätze herausgegeben von Daria Pezzoli-­Olgiati, Göttingen 2004. Storey, John (ed.), Cultural Theory and Popular Culture – A Reader, 4th edn, Harlow 2009. Strübing, Jörg and Schnettler, Bernt (eds), Methodologie interpretativer Sozialforschung – Klassische Grundlagentexte, Konstanz 2004. Stuckrad, Kocku von, ‘The Discursive Study of Religion – From States of Mind to Communicative Action’, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 15 (2003), pp. 255–271. Stuckrad, Kocku von, ‘Reflections on the Limits of Reflection – An Invitation to the Discoursive Study of Religion’, Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 22 (2010), pp. 156–169. Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, ‘Sens chrétien d’une Déclaration des droits de l’homme’, Pax Romana 2, 3 (1948), p. 3. Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Die internationalen katholischen Organisationen, Aschaffenburg 1972 (Der Christ in der Welt). Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, ‘Pax Romana: Son Histoire’, in Altermatt, Urs and Sugranyes

206   Bibliography de Franch, Ramon, Pax Romana 1921–1981 – Gründung und Entwicklung, Freiburg 1981, pp. 31–48. Süss, Joachim, Zur Erleuchtung unterwegs – Neo-­Sannyasins in Deutschland und ihre Religion, Berlin 1994 (Marburger Studien zur Afrika- und Asienkunde). Taylor, Charles, A Secular Age, Cambridge/London 2007. Taylor, Mark C. (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago/London 1998. Thant, U, View from the UN, London 1977. Thomas, Scott M., The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Relations – The Struggle for the Soul of the Twenty-­first Century, New York/ Houndmills 2005 (Culture and Religion in International Relations). Thompson, Judith and Heelas, Paul, The Way of the Heart – The Rajneesh Movement, Wellingborough 1986. Tibi, Bassam, Islamism and Islam, New Haven/London 2012. Toft, Monica D., Philpott, Daniel, and Shah, Timothy S., God’s Century – Resurgent Religion and Global Politics, New York/London 2011. Trisconi, Michela (ed.), Mémoires Engagées – 76ième–50ième Anniversaire Pax Romana – ICMICA, Fribourg 1997. Tschannen, Oliver, ‘The Secularization Paradigm – A Systematization’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30 (1991), pp. 395–415. Turner, Bryan (ed.), Secularization – Volume 1–4, Los Angeles 2010 (Sage Key Debates in Sociology). United Nations Office of Information (ed.), Basic Facts – About the United Nations, New York 2004. Unser, Günther, Die UNO – Aufgaben, Strukturen, Politik, München 2004 (Beck Rechts­ ratgeber). Urquhart, Cathy, Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research – A Practical Guide, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi 2013. Visser ‘t Hooft, Willem A., ‘World Conference on Church and Society’, Ecumenical Review 18 (1966), pp. 417–425. Volger, Helmut (ed.), Grundlagen und Strukturen der Vereinten Nationen, München/ Wien 2007. Wallis, Roy, The Road to Total Freedom – A Sociological Analysis of Scientology, London 1976. Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics, New York 1979. Wamsler, Thomas, ‘Political Classification and the Framework of Tradition – Reading the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from a History of Religions Perspective’, in Binderup, Lars and Jensen, Tim, (eds), Human Rights Democracy and Religion – In the Perspective of Cultural Studies, Philosophy, and the Study of Religions, Odensen 2005. Ward, Michael, Quantifying the World – UN Ideas and Statistics, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2004 (United Nations Intellectual History Project). Warner, Michael, Van Antwerpen, Jonathan, and Calhoun, Craig (eds), Varieties of Secularism in a Secular Age, Cambridge/London 2010. Weck, Guillaume de, Pax Romana 1887–1921–1946, Histoire de la Confédération internationale des Étudiants Catholiques, Fribourg 1946. Weiner, Matthews, ‘Religion and the United Nations – Introduction’, CrossCurrents 60 (2010), pp. 292–296. Weiß, Josef, Das katholische Farbenstudententum in der Gegenwart, München 1924. Weiss, Thomas G. and Gordenker, Leon (eds), NGOS, the UN, and Global Governance, Boulder/London 1996 (Emerging Global Issues).

Bibliography   207 Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge 1999. Wenzel, Knut, Kleine Geschichte des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, Freiburg im Breisgau 2005. Whyte, Lyman C., International Non-­Governmental Organizations – Their Purposes, Methods, and Accomplishments, New York 1968. Wiebe, Donald, The Politics of Religious Studies – The Continuing Conflict with Theology in the Academy, New York 1999. Wiener, Michael, Das Mandat des UN-­Sonderberichterstatters über Religions- und Weltanschauungsfreiheit – Institutionelle, prozedurale und materielle Rechtsfragen, Frankfurt am Main 2007 (Schriften zum Staats- und Völkerrecht). Willems, Ulrich and Minkenberg, Michael, ‘Politik und Religion im Übergang – Tendenzen und Forschungsfragen am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts’, in Minkenberg, Michael and Willems, Ulrich (eds), Politik und Religion, Wiesbaden 2003, pp. 13–41 (Sonderheft der Politischen Vierteljahresschrift). Willetts, Peter (ed.), ‘The Conscience of the World’ – The Influence of Non-­Governmental Organisations in the UN System, Washington, DC 1996. Wilson, Erin K., After Secularism – Rethinking Religion in Global Politics, New York 2012. Winter, Jay, Dreams of Peace and Freedom – Utopian Moments in the 20th Century, New Haven/London 2006. Wohlrab-­Sahr, Monika (ed.), Biographie und Religion – Zwischen Ritual und Selbstsuche, Frankfurt am Main/New York (Biographie und Religion). Woodhead, Linda, ‘Introduction’, in Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, Religion and Change in Modern Britain, Milton Park/New York 2012, pp. 1–33. Woodhead, Linda, Fletcher, Paul, Kawanami, Hiroko, and Smith, David (eds), Religions in the Modern World, London/New York 2002. Zeidan, David, The Resurgence of Religion – A Comparative Study of Selected Themes in Christian and Islamic Fundamentalist Discourses, Leiden 2002 (NUMEN-­books).

9.2  Unpublished material 9.2.1  From the CCIA-­archives Booth, Alan R., Memo on Preparation for New Delhi, 1.XI.1960 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 08 01 05). Booth, Alan, Letter to Fagley, 12/III/1966 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 21). Carrillo de Albornoz, Angel F., First Rough Draft of a Study on the Basis and Nature of Religious Liberty and of an ecumenical Statement thereof, VIII1959 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01). CCIA, Preliminary Report on Human Rights General Assembly – third session Paris, XI 1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 23). Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, An Informal Summary of Comments in Response to an Inquiry by the officers of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, 17.IX.1959 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 05). Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Study on Discrimination in Religious Rights and Practices, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 05). Dulles, John F., Chairman’s Statement, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06). Epps, Dwain C., Letter to Montezomolo, 22.XI.1973 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 14).

208   Bibliography Fagley, Richard M., Letter to Nolde, 3.V.1967 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 08 01 07). Fagley, Richerd M., Letter to Micheli, 23.IX.1965 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 21). Fagley, Richard M., Letter to Blake, 16.I.1970 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 11 01 5). Fagley, Richard M., Letter to Scheuner, 20.IV.1970 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 11 01 5). Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America and Foreign Missions Conference of North America, Statement on Religious Liberty (21.III.1944/12.IV.1944 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01). Grubb, Kenneth G., Remark, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06). Grubb, Kenneth, Letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, 19.III.1959 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 08 01 05). Grubb, Kenneth, Letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, 29.IX.1952 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 11 01 1). Hudson, Cyril E., Remark, 5.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06). Micheli, Dominique, UN Study on Discrimination in Religious Rights, 9.II.1956 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 05). Micheli, Dominique, Study of Religious Liberty – Draft Statement on Strategy, 29. II.1960 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01). Montezomolo, Andrea di, Letter to Niilus, 10.IX.1973 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 14). N.A., Draft Provisional Plan of Study, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 20). N.A., Memorandum C.C.I.A. Consultation 1967 – Dr Blake’s Advisory Committee, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 08 01). N.A., Memorandum C.C.I.A. Consultation 1967 – Meeting of Dr Blake with a group of Theologians, 15.VII.1966 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 08 01). N.A., Minutes of Section IV, The Church and the International Disorder’ 25–31. VIII.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 31 004). N.A., Preamble of the Charter of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, Geneva/London/New York 1946, p. 3. N.N., Remark, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06). Nolde, O. Frederick, Relation of the Churches to the UN, 4.VIII 1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06), p. 12. Nolde, O. Frederick, Procedures for Consultation with the UN Commission on Human Rights at its Third Session as Suggested by replies from Church Leaders, 30.IV.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 23). Nolde, O. Frederick, Letter to Malik, 6.V.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA Box 428 3 23). Nolde, O. Frederick, Letter to Visser ‘t Hooft, 11.III.1958 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01). Visser ‘t Hooft, Willem A., Statement, 4.VIII.1946 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 01 06). Visser ‘t Hooft, William, Letter to Nolde, 17.XI.1948 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 25). Visser ‘t Hooft, Willem A., Letter to Grubb and Nolde, 26.III.1958 (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 428 3 01). World Council of Churches, Report of the Consultation on the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, The Hague, 12–17/IV/1967, N.D. (WCC 428 CCIA, Box 17).

9.2.2  From the Pax Romana-­archives Association des Intellectuels Romains Catholiques, Discussion sur le Projet de Déclaration de Droits de l’homme, N.D. (PaRo-­Fr, Box G 4). Câmara, Hélder, Homme, veux-­tu être libre?, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1). Catholic Association for International Peace, An International Declaration of Human Rights N.D. (PaRo-­Fr, Box G 4).

Bibliography   209 Centre d’Information Catholique (ed.), Centre d’Information Catholique des Organisations Internationales Catholiques, Genève, N.D. (PaRo-­Fr, Box H 4 1). Dembinski, Ludwig/Nikolai, Jürgen, Answers to the Questionnaire, 29.IV.1968 (PaRo­FR, Box I 5 1). Dembinski, Ludwig, La Situation actuelle et les perspectives d’avenir de Pax Romana – MIIC, 24.IX.1970 (PaRo-­FR, Box A 3 4). Dougherty, James E., Letter to White, 2.II.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 3). Dubois, Marc, Compte Rendue de la deuxième Session de la Commission des droits de l’Homme, 30.XII.1947 (PaRo-­FR, Box G 4). Dubois, Marc, Le statut du Nations Unies consultatif au Conseil Économique et Social et les organisations internationales non-­governementales, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 5 1). Dubois, Marc, Les travaux de la Commission des Droits de l’homme des Nations Unies et la doctrine catholique (Circulaire no 4 pour la Conférence des Présidents), 7.II.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box H 4 1). Gremaud, Joseph, Les 25 and de Pax Romana, 31.VIII.1946 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 1). International Catholic Movement of Intellectual and Cultural Affairs, Journées d’études de la 21 Assemblée Plénière du MIIC, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1). Kelly, Raymond, F., Open Letter of the Pax Romana Office for UN Affairs, Christmas 1964 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). König, Franz, Die Aufgaben des katholischen Akademikers in der Welt und für die Einheit der Kirche in der Welt, 27.VII.1961 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1 1). Melady, Thomas, Memorandum, 19.X.1965 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). Melady, Thomas P., Letter to Dembinski and Nicolai, 3.XI.1967 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 5 1). Moch, Georg, Letter to Sugranyes de Franch, 13.VI.1951 (PaRo-­FR, Box C 5 1). Mouvement International des Intellectuels Catholiques (ed.), Proces – Verbal de la IIe Assemblée Plenière (St. Edmund’s College, Ware, 13–16 août 1948), N.D., PaRo-­Fr, Box B 3). Mouvement International des Intellectuels Catholiques/MIIC (ed.), Rapport pour les commissions du programme de l’Assemblée de Fribourg, VI.1961 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1 1). N.A., Fondation Pie XII, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 5 1). N.A., Pax Romana Regional Congress, 1.VI.1945 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 31). N.A., Objectives et modifications apportées par les fédérations au projet de status de l’union mondiale des étudiants catholiques, 26.III.1947 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 3). N.A., Rencontre Internationale sur les Droits de l’Homme en Allemagne, N.D. (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). Pax Romana (ed.), ‘Etudes des mesures discriminatoires dans le domaine de la liberté de religion et des pratiques religieuses’, 26.V.1956 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). Pax Romana, Programme General, 22.V.1971 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 1). Pax Romana’s General Secratariat, Reply to a Questionnaire for Non-­governmental Organizations on Activities for the International Year For Human Rights, N.D. (PaRo­FR, Box I 5 1). Pope Paul VI, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, 4.X.1965 (PaRo­Fr, Box E 6 1). Salat, Rudi, Quelques idées personnelles sur les réunions des organisations non-­ gouvernementales, tenues à Genève, au mois de mai 1948 sous les auspices des Nations-­Unies, 6.VI.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6 1). Schneuwly, Joseph, Letter to Dougherty, 27.X.1947 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 3). Schneuwly, Joseph, Letter to Dougherty, 28.V.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box I 3). Schneuwly, Joseph, Letter to Dougherty, 7.VII.1948 (PARO-­FR, Box I 3).

210   Bibliography Sottas, Eric, Letter to Luoni, 18.III.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 3). Sottas, Eric, Letter to the Presidents and Secretary Generals of Amnesty International, the Ligue internationale des Droits de l’Homme, and the Societé Anti-­esclavagiste, 10. VI.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6). Sottas, Eric, Letter to Waldheim, 10.VI.1977 (PaRo-­FR, Box E 6). Statement by Pax Romana, 33rd Session of the Commission of Human Rights (7. II.1977–11.III.1977) (PaRo-­FR, Box E 3). Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Letter to Veronese, 9.IX.1948 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 2). Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Letter to Charpentier, 12.I.1955 (PaRo-­FR, Box B 2). Sugranyes de Franch, Ramon, Letter to Wolff, 3.II.1951 (PaRo-­FR, Box C 5 1).

Index

Page numbers in bold denote figures. Africa 1, 71, 74; Commissioners 88; increasing WCC membership 97; Protestant missionary activities 80; Service Institute 134; shifting power relations 82 African 65; delegates 142; politics 141 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1979) 78n36 Afro-Asian visit of Pope Paul VI 142 Agudath Israel World Organization 73 Altermatt, U. 18n48, 121, 153n6, 154n15 America 75, 144; civil religion 117n48; FCCCA 93, 116n16 American 157n38; Baptists 72; Catholics 126; conservative NGOs 73; delegation 90; networks 90; politics 140–1; social scientists 41n28 Anglo-American 48; background 90, 165; idea of Christendom 179; Protestantism 111, 114; theology 83 Appleby, R.S. 25, 39n4 Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004) 78n36 Asad, T. 30 Asia 71, 74; increasing WCC membership 97; Protestant missionary activities 80; RNGOs organizational centre 75; shifting power relations 82; South and East 1 Asian 65; see also Afro-Asian visit of His Holiness Pope Paul VI Association des Intellectuels Roumains Catholiques 155n25 Banchoff, T. 6, 23 Bayly, C.A. 25 Bellah, R.N. 78n39, 100, 117n48

Benavides, G. 16n29 Berger, J. 34–6, 164 Berger, P.L. 22–3, 29, 42n54, 81, 173 Beyer, P. 81, 173 black box 2–3, 8, 15n9; of religiously affiliated organizations 37, 45, 82, 122, 175, 187; of RNGO activities 163, 181 Blake, E.C. 107, 169 Blin, F. 121 Bochinger, C. 41, 193 Boehle, J. 37, 44n81 Bohman, J. 14n5 Boli, J. 34–5, 44n74, 62 Bonino, J.M. 104 Booth, A.R. 95, 103 Bourdieu, P. 31, 186–7 Bretton Woods Institutions 61 Bruce, S. 25–6, 190n13 Brundage, A. 51 Buddhism 74, 100 Buddhist 35, 188; affiliation 176; organizations 9, 75 Buddhist World Fellowship 74 Caillé, A. 31 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990) 78n36 Câmara, H. 148, 161n72 Caribbean 65, 71 Carrette, J. 37, 189n3 Carrillo de Albornoz, A.F. 100, 102, 118n55 Casanova, J. 28–9, 42n55, 59, 179–80, 185 Catholic Association for International Peace 155n25 Catholic; see also Roman Catholic

212   Index Catholics 155n22, 156n32, 156n34, 157n40, 158n43; American 126; committed 159n48; lay 160n67 Centre d’Information Catholique des Organisations Internationales Catholiques 134–5, 138, 144, 157n40 Christian 128; background 35, 73; Churches 86; civil rights networks 3; concept of religious liberty 100; confession 164; conscience 83, 89; contribution to international law 99; conviction 93; Education 84; faith 92, 110, 158n47; forces of the world 85; Gospel 83; ideals 157n40; insight 159n49; interpretations of war 25; means 154n18; mind 80, 119n87; NGOs 72–3, 170; non Roman 87; organizations 9, 73, 160n70, 176; principles 88–9, 156n33, 157n40; responsibility 113, 160n70; revelation 99; River Plate Studies Centre 111; theology 99, 109; traditions 75, 153n3; umbrella organizations 47, 80; Understanding of an International Ethos 100; witness 102, 105, 107; world 87, 157n40 Christianity 9, 27–8, 47, 73, 92, 99, 110, 155n24 Christians 83, 85, 92, 103, 112–13, 128, 161 Church Center for the United Nations (CCUN) 72 Church Diplomacy 169, 172, 177 civil rights 104; Christian networks 3; movement 110, 115, 143, 171 Civil Society Activism 2, 13, 152, 169–71, 176; developments towards 182, 184; trend towards 11, 174, 177–81, 183, 187–8 Clarke, G. 36 Claude, I.L. 63 Commission of the Churches on International Affairs (CCIA) 2, 9–14, 14, 45, 47, 50–2, 54n4, 71, 75, 80–7, 94–5, 94, 110, 113–15, 117n42, 117n49, 118n52, 118n73, 120, 122–3, 130, 156n32, 165, 167, 169, 172, 175, 179, 185; action 87; activities 104; aims 109; changes 110; Charter 88, 109, 116n27, 119n87; Commissioners 91, 99; conceptual work 90; consolidation 95; debates 117n35, 134; developments inside 144, 151; establishment 152; global outlook 164; human rightsrelated activities 163; officers 82, 89–92, 97–103, 105–6, 108, 112, 114, 166, 168;

organizational set-up 89, 107; practical work 81, 84, 106; reconsidering the work of 105–6; report 103; resolutions 93; significant aspects 116n21; staff 96, 111; St. Pölten-Consultation 113; topics associated 108; understanding 96; UN frame of reference 91; work of the CCIA 82–3, 88–9, 97, 111, 115, 165 Committee of Religious NonGovernmental Organizations at the United Nations 72 Committee on a Just and Durable Peace 84 Communicating the Gospel 102 Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the UNO (CONGO) 72, 78n52 covenants 46, 66, 67–8; 69, 77n34, 94, 97 Dalai Lama 3, 21 declaration 20, 60, 78n36, 93, 117n48; of Christian principles 89; on human rights 155n22, 156n33 Déclaration des droits de l’homme 126, 131, 155n26 Dembinski, L. 145, 147, 160n65, 160n66, 160n67 Derrida, J. 48 development organizations 3, 36 Dobbelaere, K. 28 Dougherty, J.E. 122, 125, 128, 140 Dubois, M. 122, 125–7, 129–32, 140, 155n22, 155n24, 156n30, 156n31 Dulles, J.F. 84–5, 88, 114 Eastern Europe 71, 97, 102 Egypt 3, 70 Eisenstadt, S.N. 25 Elsas, C. 64 Epps, D.C. 111–14 Euro-America 30 Europe 1, 61, 74–5, 82, 95, 139, 148; Eastern 71, 97, 102; Western 71, 97 European 120; Age of Enlightenment 28; background 126; continent 123; countries 157n38; East 137; intellectuals 158n47; Protestantism 97; South and East 120 Executive Secretary of the Joint Committee on Religious Liberty 84 Fagley, R.M. 95, 99, 108, 111–12 Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America (FCCCA) 93

Index   213 Fitzgerald, T. 31, 56n24 Fondation Pie XII 136, 158n42 Foucault, M. 48, 56n27 France 43n46, 61, 125; former Prime Minister 139 Franco-American Catholic theology 127, 151 Friends World Council for Consultation (FWCC) 55n4, 55n11 Fritzsche, K.P. 77n34 Gabriel, K. 28, 185 Geertz, C. 5 General Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) 90–2, 102–3, 117n30; Amsterdam 91, 95; second 96, 99; statement 93, 96; third 97; fourth 108 Geneva 46–7, 50–54n4, 72, 95, 105, 107, 133, 136, 138, 159n48; Centre d’Information Catholique 134, 144; Commission of the Churches on International Affairs Report 118n73, 119n88; Commission on Human Rights 161n74; foundation of the CCIA 84; Human Rights Commission 94, 149, 155n22; NGO-community 71; Pax Romana representatives 129, 134, 144, 151, 159n51; Permanent Observer of Holy See 134–5, 149, 159n53; UDHR drafts 90; WCC headquarters 166; World Conference on Church and Society 104, 118n61, 119n87 Ghandhi, M. 3 Gilson, E. 127, 155n26 Gladigow, B. 5, 181 global outlook 164, 172 Goldthorpe, J.H. 15n9 Goodall, N. 118n75 Graf, F.W. 21, 180 Great Britain; see also United Kingdom Gremaud, J. 124, 154n18 Grubb, K. 86–8, 95–6, 103, 114 Gutiérrez, G. 104, 148 Habermas, J. 1–2, 14n5, 180 Hackett, R.I.J. 64 Halecki, O. 138, 140, 155n26 Hammarskjöld, D. 133 Hanson, E.O. 23 Haynes, J. 3–4, 6–7, 15n15, 23 Herren, M. 60–2, 76n12 Holy See 3, 8, 70, 98, 113, 121, 129, 143, 159n63; activities 141, 145–7; approval of foundation of ICO 155n23;

cooperation with 150; establishment inside the UN 152; Fondation Pie XII 136, 158n42; increasing presence 135, 141; in international relations 135, 149; Mission to the UN 159n53; the Nuntio 150; Observer Mission 167; Permanent Observers 140, 149, 169; Permanent Representative in Geneva 134; representative 150; self-perception 142; see also Vatican Huber, M. 99 Hudson, C.E. 87 Hudson, D. 81 human rights 10, 38, 50–1, 53, 55n5, 62, 84, 96, 101, 109, 117n35, 127–8, 131, 133, 143, 152, 155n22, 155n24, 155n26, 156n34, 157n36, 183; agenda 94, 111, 150; catalogue 68; commitment 137, 140, 149; concept of 12, 166; conceptualized 132; construction of 13, 169; covenants 66, 69, 97; debates 11, 59, 78n35, 81–2, 126, 130, 136; declarations 78n36; defence of 161n73; discourse 9, 63, 67, 123, 134, 144–5, 164–5, 170, 175, 177–8, 187–8; discussion 100, 156n32; establishment 151; experts 113, 167; history of 64–5, 184; individual 83; inside the WCC 82, 90–1, 103, 112; mainstreaming 104, 114; new approach 93, 108; NGOs 79n60; Pax Romana cooperation with UN 138; protests 146; question of 116n21, 156n33; recognition 76n12; religious 98; Roman Catholic approach 122; second generation 110–11, 113, 115, 168; significance 61; third generation 77n34, 168; violation of 157n38 Human Rights 78n36, 110, 117n35, 119n88; Commission 67, 90–1, 94, 97, 112, 116n29, 126, 136, 149, 155n22, 161n73, 161n74, 161n77; Committee 67; Covenants 46; Council 67; International Conference 159n63; International Year 144–6, 159n64; National Catholic Welfare Conference declaration 155n22; Protection 145; Studies 79n60; Watch 65 human rights-related 113, 168, 170; activities 136, 138, 150, 163, 168–70, 174, 181; articles 128, 144; commission 152; discourses 10–11, 13–14, 45, 52, 75, 166–8, 170–1, 175, 177; discussions 100; documents 51, 66–7, 165

214   Index Huntington, S.P. 1–2, 180 international affairs 80, 83–4, 86–8, 92, 96–7, 99, 102, 104–8, 112, 115, 141 International Catholic Information and Liaison Office 153n2 International Catholic Movement of Intellectual and Cultural Affairs (ICMICA) 124, 148, 160n70; president 138; Secretary General 145; see also Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) International Catholic Organizations (ICO) 72–3, 121, 127, 133, 135–6, 139, 142–3, 145, 147, 151–2, 155n23, 156n31, 158n42, 160n66, 160n67, 160n68, 161n73, 163; Centre d’Information 144; Information Center 72, 135; representatives 141–2, 167 International Catholic Union of the Press and the International Young Christian Workers 73 International Council on Jewish Social and Welfare Services 73 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 66 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 66 International Humanist and Ethical Union 79n60 International Missionary Council (IMC) 80, 88, 89, 107, 114, 119n87, 163, 165; integration into WCC 97, 106, 115n2 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 61 International Movement of Catholic Students (IMCS) 124–5, 148; president 138; Second Assembly 131; Secretary General 128, 145; see also Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) international Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) 35, 44n74 international relations 6, 20, 31, 36, 54, 60, 66–7, 81, 102, 107, 109, 111, 122–3, 139, 150, 163, 165, 167, 169, 172–3; history of 23, 76n12; Holy See 135, 141, 149; religions in 22–3, 38, 45–6, 69, 173; religiously affiliated activities 120, 134, 136; religiously affiliated organizations 179; RNGOs 171, 178; role of Christianity 99; socio-political changes 65; work of RNGOs 37–8 Islam 75, 100; Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam 78n36; Islamism 1 Islamic 1, 30; Organization of the Islamic

Cooperation (OIC) 70; Relief 75; World Studies 75 Italy 31, 141, 154n14 Jewish 75; affiliation 35; Center at the U.N. 142; International Council on Jewish Social and Welfare Services 73; organizations 9; traditions 188; World Jewish Council 145; see also Judaism, Judeo-Christian organizations, The Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, World Jewish Congress Joint Committee on Religious Liberty 84 Judaism 73 Judeo-Christian organizations 73; NGOs 172 Juergensmeyer, M. 1, 3, 21, 180 Kehrer, G. 16, 17, 191, 199 Keller, R. 11, 47–8, 50, 56n24, 56n25, 57n42 Kelly, R.F. 140–1 Kille, K.J. 70 Kippenberg, H.G. 5, 25, 181 Kirchner, E.J. 134, 140, 168, 179 Knoblauch, H. 30, 57n32 Knox, G. 33, 36, 44n69 Koilpillat, J.V. 113 König, Cardinal F. 138, 140, 148, 159n49 Korea 96; Korean War 134 Koshy, N. 111 Krishnaswami, Special Rapporteur A. 68, 78n40, 97, 136; Commission 98, 137–8, 166; Study 69, 137; see also Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices Kunter, K. 81 Laity Department 102 Latin America 1, 65, 71, 80, 106, 111 Lehmann, K. 35, 41n28, 42n41, 42n55, 56n25, 56n26, 57n40, 76n12, 77n34, 153n2, 153n3, 154n18, 154n19, 155n22, 155n24, 156n31, 156n32, 156n33, 156n34, 157n36, 157n38, 157n40, 158n42, 158n43, 158n45, 158n47, 159n48, 159n49, 160n66, 160n68, 160n70, 161n72, 161n73, 161n74, 161n77 Lincoln, B. 48 Lithuania 137 Lithuanian Catholic Students 128 Lübbe, H. 28 Luckmann, T. 29–30

Index   215 Luhmann, N. 31 Luoni, Monseigneur S. 149, 161n74 Lutheran Theological Seminary 84 Luxembourg 135, 139, 159n48 Malcolm X 3 Maritain, J. 155n26, 165; Institut International Jacques Maritain 122 Marshall, K. 23 Martin, D. 22, 27–8, 33, 185 Masuzawa, T. 31 McCutcheon, R.T. 31, 56n24 Melady, T.P. 134, 140–2, 145–6, 148, 159n61 Micheli, D. 95, 97–8, 105 Micklethwait, J. 21 Minkenberg, M. 24, 40n13, 41n28 missionary 36; activities 84; President of the Church Missionary Society 86; Protestant activities 80; see also International Missionary Council Moch, G. 132 Montezomolo, A. di 113 Mouvement International des Intellectuels Catholiques 156n33, 158n47, 159n48 Muslim 35; affiliation 176, 188; aid 3; NGOs 75; organizations 9; ummah 70; World League 73–4; Worldwide organizations 73 National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) 126–7, 135, 155n22 Nations Intellectual History Project (UNIHP) 62–3 New Delhi WCC Third General Assembly 97, 102–3 Niebuhr, R. 85, 88, 117n30; Niebuhrian theology 165 Niilus, L. 111–14 Nolde, O.F. 81, 84–6, 88, 90–1, 94–6, 98, 100, 103, 108, 110, 114, 116n29, 117n35, 118n52, 118n75, 179 non-Catholic: intellectuals 139; organizations 154n19 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) 50, 62, 96, 128, 130, 135, 150, 179; accredited 71, 74; Catholic 123, 129, 142, 156n31, 165; Christian 72–3, 170, 172; Conference of 78n52; with consultative status 156n31; cooperation 145, 183; human rights 79n60; integral aspect of UN 63; international 114, 159n48, 164; invited to contribute information 97; Judeo-Christian 172;

parallel activities 129; religious 175, 180; religiously affiliated 35, 75, 165, 185; role inside UN context 167; status 9, 74, 146, 149 Normand, R. 66 North America 1, 16n29, 61, 74, 83, 97 North American Protestantism 97; Study of Religions 16n29 Nurser, J. 81 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 134 Orthodox 82, 163; churches 102; cooperation 98; neo-Orthodox theology 83; Slav Church 87 Osterhammel, J. 25 PAX Association 146 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) 2, 9–13, 45–7, 52, 75, 115, 120, 129, 142, 151–2, 153n2, 154n9, 154n11, 155n26, 158n43, 158n45, 159n48, 159n49, 160n66, 160n67, 161n72, 164, 175, 179, 184–5; activities 139–40, 143–4, 165; affiliation to state institutions 150; aims 154n18; archives 14, 50, 132, 136, 149, 155n25; branches 124, 126, 147, 160n69; Church Diplomats 172; Congress 148; experts 166–7; formal establishment of 122–3, 125–6, 128; foundation 121–2; General Secretariat 125, 130, 133, 137–8, 161n73; governing body 51; interventions 171n74; Limburg Declarations 157n39; Limburg workshop 131–3, 157n38; presence 154n19; representatives 122, 129, 134, 138, 140–1, 144–6, 167, 169, 180; selfunderstanding 12, 168; work 135, 154n17; World Congress 123 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) human rights activities 131; discourse 126, 133–4; related documents 165 Pax Romana (ICMICA/IMCS) UN-related activities 121–2, 124, 127, 129–30, 133–6, 138–44, 149, 152 Peiponen, M. 81 Permanent Observer 70, 140–1, 149–50, 159n53, 169; Missions 135 Plümper, T. 14n5 Pollack, D. 26, 42n41 Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace 113 Pope 135; Paul VI 141–2, 159n63; Pius XI 121; Pius XII 154n19, 158n42

216   Index post-secular society 1, 14n5; approach to religions 23 Protestant 180; churches 87; historiography 154n9; missionary activities 80; NGOs 165; organizations 130; representatives 142 Protestant-dominated umbrella organizations 9, 47, 80, 82, 163 Protestantism: European and North American 97, 111, 114; US 83–4 Protestants 87, 158n43 Quaker Offices (QUNO) 71 religious freedom 8, 68–9, 79n60, 91–3, 98, 117n35, 156n34, 167; 1948 Declaration 114; debate on 84, 90; establishment of 67; expanding 82, 89, 94; Krishnaswami Study 166; provisions for 95; Special Rapporteur 55n4; theological basis 97, 100–2, 105, 114; violation 102 religious liberty 101, 117n35; disestablishment of the Secretariat 117n49; Joint Committee on 84; WCC Declaration 90, 92–3, 97 Religious Non-governmental Organizations (RNGOs) 8–14, 19, 33–9, 45–9, 54, 55n8, 59–61, 63, 70–5, 76n11, 80, 120, 135, 164–5, 170–1, 173, 175–88 resurgence of religions 1–3, 12–14, 25–6, 31, 37, 184, 187; concept 22–3, 180–1; debates on 2, 14, 46, 179; dialectics 181–2; discussions around 24, 45, 181; general 178; global 9, 17n40; manifold concepts 20; so-called 2, 37, 175–6; worldwide 8, 173–4 Riedmatten, H. de 134, 136–7, 141, 149, 159n53, 179 Riesebrodt, M. 1, 21 Roman Catholic 121, 123; approach to human rights 122, 133; cooperation with UN 142; countries 98; frame of reference 140; interests 138; NGOs 75, 129, 142, 156n31, 165; orders 28; point of view 151; social teaching 136; students 9, 120, 124, 128; theologians 100, 118n52, 147; theological traditions 134; theology 127; worldwide avantgarde 12, 165 Roman Catholic Church 1, 12, 75, 121, 126–7, 135, 141–3, 146, 151–2, 167; discrimination against 158n45; selfunderstanding 168

Roman Catholic organizations 9, 115; consultative status 129; crisis 160n66; international 156n31, 158n42, 160n68, 161n73; lay 47, 135, 139, 162; liberal 33; self-understanding 130; student 2, 120, 151, 153n2, 163; umbrella 75; see also International Catholic Organizations Information Center Roman Catholic thought 100; FrancoAmerican 151; Social Thinking 167; theological thinking 152 Roman Catholicism 115, 127, 134, 165, 170; Catholicity of the Church 108 Rudolph, K. 5, 181 Russia 70; relationship with 86 Salat, R. 130, 154n13, 156n32 Salvation Army 73 Schnettler, B. 17, 18, 30, 43, 190, 204, 205 Schneuwly, J. 125, 128 Secretary General 144; Amnesty International 161n75; Centre d’Information 135; United Nations 69–70, 105, 112, 133, 141, 145, 150; Pax Romana 122, 124–5, 146–7; UnderSecretary Generals 111; UNESCO 131; WCC 113, 145 secularism 20, 30 Seiwert, H. 5, 181 Smith, J.Z. 5 Snyder, J. 23, 40n15 Sottas, E. 144, 149–50, 161n74, 161n77 South America 74 Spickard, J.V. 64 Stausberg, M. 55n10 Stokke, O. 63 Stolz, F. 6 Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices 68, 78n40, 97, 117n41, 136 Sugranyes de Franch, R. 121–2, 125, 131–2, 136–7, 147, 155n26, 156n34, 157n36, 157n37, 160n68 Taylor, C.A. 42n54 Thant, U. 104–5, 111–12, 141, 145 The Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations 73 theologians 83, 95, 165; ecumenical 81; major 148; Roman Catholic 118n52, 147 Thomas, G.M. 62 Thomas, S.M. 7, 14n5, 23 Toft, M.D. 23

Index   217 Trisconi, M. 154n11, 160n67 Ukraine 137 Ukrainian Catholic Students 128 United Kingdom 19, 32, 61, 83, 88, 131; Quakers 55n11 United Nations 8, 10, 14, 33–7, 46, 50, 53–4, 60, 70, 81–2, 85, 89, 104, 106, 107, 127, 129, 143, 151, 175; activities 86; Charter Article 71 8; Children’s Fund (UNICEF) 61, 134; conceptual work 96; context 71; co-operation with 87; coordinating agent 110; General Assembly 59, 61, 66–7, 76n12, 93–4, 111, 135, 144, 159n55; general policy 67; High Commissioner for Refugees 134; Intellectual History Project (UNIHP) 62–3; interest groups 75; international leaders 107; official archives 46; organization 86; related activities 49, 51; Religious NGOs 72; RNGOs 74; Secretary General 69, 112; Security Council 61, 66–7, 74, 76n12; Sessions 94; specialised agencies 109; Year of Dialogue among Civilizations 20 United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 8, 35, 46, 61, 67, 71, 126, 125–6, 156n34; list of NGOs 72–4; Muslim NGOs 75; NGO Committee 128; official web-site 79n58; President 90, 156n34; Sub-Commission 97 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 61, 82, 123, 126, 129, 132, 144; Director 130; Director General 139; Secretary General 131 United States of America (USA) 3, 46, 60–1, 81, 84, 88, 110, 117n48, 125, 140, 146, 154n13; Protestantism 83–4, 97; Secretary of State 84; see also America, American, North America, North American Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 11, 46, 59–60, 64–9, 81, 90, 92–5, 97–8, 113–14, 127, 155n22, 159n61, 165; Article 18 68, 81, 90, 92, 94–5, 98; Resolution 69, 78n38

Uppsala 110–11; Fourth General Assembly of the WCC 108, 118n73; Report 118n75 USSR (Soviet Union) 61, 137; breakdown 2 Vatican 113, 121, 142, 158n42; see also Holy See Visser ‘t Hooft, W.A. 84–5, 95–6, 100–1, 103–5, 117n38 Volger, H. 78n54 Wamsler, T. 64 Ward, M. 63 Warner, M. 42n54, 191n28 Weck, G. de 121, 153n2 Wiebe, D. 31 Willems, U. 24, 41n28 Woodhead, L. 31–3, 39, 185–6 World Alliance of Young Men’s Christian Associations (YMCA) 73 World Bank 61 World Conference on Church and Society 104, 118n61, 169 World Council of Churches (WCC) 2, 9–10, 12, 14, 47, 82–4, 89, 98, 101–2, 105, 107, 109–12, 144–5, 152, 165, 167, 170, 179, 184; activities 81, 85–6, 102, 104; archives 111; CCIA 119n88, 120; Declaration on Religious Liberty 90, 92–3, 97; Executive Committee 117n49; general mission 115n4; headquarters at Geneva 166; leaders 145; members 80, 119n87; officials 100, 103; power relations 91, 168; representation 87, 96; Secretary General 113; selfunderstanding 115; specialized commission 163; statements 88, 95, 106, 114; struggle inside 108; Study Department 117n30; support of UN 94 World Council of Churches (WCC) General Assembly 91, 102; first 90; second 96, 99; Third 103; Fourth 108, 118n73; see also General Assembly of the World Council of Churches World Health Organization (WHO) 61 World Jewish Congress 55n8, 73 world politics 2, 22, 24, 60, 63, 89, 114 World War II 12, 32, 59, 61, 82, 89, 114, 122–5, 134, 151, 154n13, 164, 176