On the relationship between the Norwegian State and the Church of Norway

Recommendation of the State-Church Committee

The committee

The State-Church Committee was appointed by Royal Decree on 14 March 2003. The committee consisted of a wide range of representatives from all the political parties in the Norwegian parliament, church bodies, the Sami population, the Norwegian Council of Free Churches, the Norwegian Humanist Association, different religions, and representatives with special expertise.

The Government appointed the following members of the committee:

County Governor Kåre Gjønnes, Orkdal (chairman)
Pensioner Marit Tingelstad, Gran (deputy chairman)
Staffworker Jorund Andersen, Kristiansand
Dean Per-Otto Gullaksen, Fredrikstad
Pastor Jens-Petter Johnsen, Oslo
Group leader Helge Kolstad, Trøgstad
Bishop Per Oskar Kjølaas, Tromsø
Housewife Hildur Larsen, Sveio
Project leader Lena Larsen, Oslo
Project leader Vibeke Limi, Bærum
Member of the Storting Inge Lønning, Oslo
Director Kjell Nordstokke, Oslo/Geneva
Secretary General Dag Nygård, Notodden
Special Adviser Ingar Samset, Trondheim
Manager, Lifestance/political issues, Bente Sandvig, Bærum
Adviser Hege Fjellheim Sarre, Karasjok
Lawyer Fredrik Sejersted, Oslo
Special Adviser Anfin Skaaheim, Asker
Churchwarden Hege Steinsland, Haram
College Lecturer Pia Svensgaard, Tromsø (until November 2003)
High School Lecturer Tone Løwe, Hegra (from November 2003)

The committee’s secretariat was based in Trondheim and operational from 1 June 2003. Until 6 April 2005 it has headed by Johannes Ulltveit-Moe, with Kristin Grimstad as his assistant. After that date the secretariat was headed by Kristin Grimstad, with the assistance of hired consultants.

Mandate

The purpose of the study was to provide a basis for determining whether the state church system should be continued, reformed or discontinued. The mandate was based on the premise that the Church of Norway will continue to be a confessional, missionary, serving and open popular church.

In addition to the question of the system itself, the committee was asked to consider financing arrangements, funeral administration and arrangements for listed and protected churches. The mandate also included consideration of ownership rights to churches, churchyards and the Norwegian Church Endowment if the state church system were to be discontinued.

The recommendation of the committee

The future church system

A majority, consisting of 18 of the committee members, recommend that the current state church system be discontinued and that a new system be established for the Church of Norway. A majority of these members, 14 persons, recommend that the Church of Norway be organised as a statutory popular church. A minority of these members, 4 persons, recommend that the Church of Norway be organised as an independent popular church. Two members recommend that the current state church system be continued within the current provisions of the Norwegian Constitution.

A statutory popular church
The majority proposal for a statutory popular church entails revoking the current articles relating to the state church system in the Norwegian Constitution and making the Church of Norway an independent legal entity with its own governing bodies and independent responsibility for all matters relating to the Church’s faith and activities. Bishops would be appointed by the Church’s own bodies on the basis of broad-based arrangements for nominations and elections. The Church of Norway would continue to have a special relationship with the State pursuant to a Church Act adopted by the Storting. The majority recommends that the Church Act be formulated as a brief framework statute based on a new article in the Constitution.

The majority believes that a statutory popular church would preserve the position of the Church of Norway in the country’s history and emphasise the continuity between the present system and the new church system. At the same time, this system would express the fact that the Church is a belief community with unique characteristics that are different from those of the State. The majority stresses the importance of the Church of Norway continuing to be a nation-wide church with a broad range of contacts and room for differing degrees of religious commitment and activity among its members.

In recent years, the democratic structures of the Church have been developed at all levels. The Church has its own bodies that are capable of taking over the tasks for which the King (the Government) is currently responsible. The majority nevertheless emphasises that there is a need for measures to strengthen both electoral participation and representativeness.

The majority takes the view that the relationship between Church and people is far more important than the relationship between Church and State. In the majority’s view, this relationship depends primarily on whether the Church manages to communicate its message in a way that arouses the commitment of the population. The majority believes that it is not the way in which the relationship between church and state is organised that will be decisive for the future of the Church, but people’s sense of belonging to congregations. However, to the extent the church system is significant in this context, the majority believes that a statutory popular church will give the Church of Norway the best foundation for strong ties between Church and people. The majority regards it as an advantage that a statutory popular church can challenge church members to participate and exert influence.

The majority believes that a statutory popular church has a clear advantage because it entails full freedom of religion and belief and safeguards the right of people to express their religion and their belief in the public arena. An arrangement of this nature can prevent religion and belief from being reduced to a purely private matter.

An independent popular church
A minority of the committee, consisting of four of the twenty members, recommends an independent popular church as a model for a new church system. This means that the Church of Norway would no longer be part of the state administration but would be established as an independent religious community on a par with other religious and belief communities. Its activities would be regulated through legislation common to all religious and belief communities. This minority finds it crucial to ensure that the Church of Norway is regarded and treated as a religious community and that political bodies are not able to determine anything relating to the church’s foundation, works and conduct resulting from its unique nature. In the view of this minority, this is the church system that would make this most clear, and would also be the best way of meeting the demand for equal treatment of all religious and belief communities.

A constitutionally-based popular church
The other minority of the committee, consisting of two members, recommends that the current state church system be continued within the current articles of the Norwegian Constitution. This minority believes that the current state church system is the best way of ensuring that the Church of Norway is there for everyone who wants it, and is the best system for ensuring that the threshold is low enough for everyone to feel at home in the church, regardless of their religious commitment. This minority believes that it is extremely important to uphold the articles relating to the Church in the Norwegian Constitution and fear that removing the articles that concern the Lutheran faith and associated arrangements would create a constitutional vacuum of which it is impossible to envisage the ramifications.

Values article
As a consequence of the proposal for a statutory popular church, article 2, paragraph 2, of the Constitution would be revoked. This article of the Constitution is not a values article for the nation in the legal sense, but many people believe it to be so. In its mandate, the committee was asked to propose solutions that ensure that the nation’s value base is not weakened. A majority of 13 members recommend that a new values article be incorporated into the Constitution which would contain a special reference to Christian and humanist values. One member of the minorities recommends that the new values article be confessionally independent and refer to recognised common values or human rights, one member recommends that the amendment of article 2 be limited to the consequences of the transition from a state religion to a statutory popular church, while five members take the view that there is no need for a new article that refers to the historically-based values of the nation.

State policy relating to religion and belief
If the current state church system is discontinued, the foundation for current state policy relating to religion and belief will change, and this policy must be reconsidered. A majority of 13 members recommend that the State’s responsibility for pursuing a policy of active support for religion and belief be incorporated into the Constitution. The majority believes that this would provide constitutional protection for all religious and belief communities and would emphasise that these activities are especially important for the nation. A minority takes the view that it is neither necessary nor desirable to adopt a constitutional article of this nature because freedom of religion and belief are safeguarded by other rules.

Financing

The committee takes the view that it is a public responsibility to contribute financially and in other ways towards facilitating the activities of religious and belief communities, as is the case today.

If the church system proposed by the majority, a statutory popular church, is adopted, a majority of 15 committee members recommends that official allocations provide the main financing, with state grants covering personnel costs for all church employees and municipal grants covering the construction, maintenance, management and operation of church buildings. This would be combined with a small contribution from members to cover the financing of the congregation’s other activities.

A minority of four persons recommends providing basic state financing for the Church of Norway and other religious and belief communities to cover defined minimum services for members. Apart from this, it would be up to the Church of Norway and other religious and belief communities to make arrangements for ensuring their own revenues.

One member recommends that the main financing should come from membership fees, which would be supplemented by official grants for special purposes.

Funeral administration

A majority of 17 of the 20 members recommends amending the Funeral Act to the effect that the main principle would be that the municipality is responsible for funeral administration because funerals are a public responsibility that should be assumed by public authorities. The municipality is a neutral body with respect to religion and belief, and the distinction between the legal and practical aspects and the religious and ceremonial aspects of funerals would be clearer.

The minority of the committee recommends that the Joint Council of Churches retain this responsibility, both because the vast majority of funerals take place according to the rituals of the Church of Norway and because church buildings and churchyards constitute an integral whole in most places. The minority points out that no desire has been noted on the part of the population to transfer this responsibility to the municipal authorities, and that most people are satisfied with the way the Joint Council of Churches fulfils this responsibility.

The committee recommends that, in legislation, the term churchyard (kirkegård) be replaced by the neutral term graveyard or burial ground (gravlund or gravplass). Consideration should be given to the possibility of replacing the consecration of an entire graveyard with the consecration of individual areas in order to make it clear that some parts of the graveyard are used by several religious and belief communities.

In the view of the committee, there is a growing need to meet different religious and belief-related needs and accommodate different funeral customs in a satisfactory manner. The committee therefore recommends that an expert forum be established in each bishopric/county to provide advice for the Joint Council of Churches/the municipality.

Listed and protected churches

In the light of cultural policy considerations, the committee takes the view that special financing arrangements must be established for listed and protected churches, regardless of the future relationship between the State and the Church of Norway.

The committee recommends that, in addition to the current support schemes, a special state grant scheme for historical churches be established, similar to the Swedish scheme. The grant scheme would be triggered automatically when a church building is listed or protected. The committee recommends that a grant scheme of this nature, regardless of the future church system, be administered by the central church authorities, who would award grants on the basis of applications from congregations and/or the Joint Council of Churches. The Directorate for Cultural Heritage would give an opinion on each application.

A majority of 17 of the 20 members also emphasises the need for immediate additional funding under the current grant schemes to prevent further deterioration and decay of church buildings.

The committee takes the view that all churches must be able to serve their purpose as parish churches, regardless of their protected status. It must be possible to invest in and upgrade churches to achieve this. The committee proposes that the State assume ownership of listed and protected churches that are no longer used for church purposes.

The committee recommends that a resource centre with cultural heritage expertise be established within the Church of Norway. This centre should be established in connection with existing centres of expertise.

Property rights in the event of a different church system

Churches and church funds
The majority of the committee (17 members) recommends that properties and church funds that are not owned by private individuals or by parishes be transferred in their entirety to the Church of Norway.

A minority of three persons recommends that a total settlement of the estate be carried out because church buildings, church infrastructure and property were built up by the community over centuries, among other things through taxation.

The Norwegian Church Endowment (OVF)
A majority of 18 out of 20 members of the committee recommends that the OVF be transferred to the Church of Norway, based on the assumption that such transfer does not give other religious and belief communities the right to similar financial compensation.

A minority of two members regards the OVF as state property and a national asset. Property that is currently used by the church would be transferred to the Church of Norway, while the rest would be retained by the State or sold.