Ministry in laïque France: Understanding history to confront present challenges

Historical considerations

Laïcité as a concept was introduced by the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, initiated by the French Revolution in the 17th, and was based on autonomous reason devoid of religious assumptions (Monod, 2007: 47). The Reformation introduced revolutionary ideas which contradicted the teaching of the established church. These teachings undermined and threatened the church’s authority, contributed to the wars of religion, and after much bloodshed led to the Edict of Nantes in 1598 under Henry IV. The Edict sowed the seeds of the freedom of conscience for Reformed believers and introduced the concepts of religious pluralism and incipient laïcité (Monod, 2007: 47). The Reformation forever changed the religious equation in France. Cabanel estimates that by 1560 one out of ten French people were won over by the Reformation and converted to Protestantism. Protestantism was temporarily authorized and protected, yet still trapped as a minority in what Cabanel calls a coexistence in intolerance (2006: 167–69). In the following centuries, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 under Louis XIV and persecution of the Huguenots, the French Revolution in 1789, the Napoleonic Concordat in 1801, the rise of anticlericalism in the late 19th century, and the Dreyfus Affair all conspired to create a religion-weary nation. ¹

The French Revolution in 1789 had produced a break with organized and obligatory religion in article 10 of the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen. The radical idea was declared that no one should be troubled for religious opinions. Ducomte considers that the French Revolution marks the starting point of the laicization of French society and her institutions. The term laïcité was not yet in use at the time. Laïcité, however, gave a name to a reality that already long existed beginning with the French Revolution and the attempts to free the state from all confessional control (2001: 3). The atrocities of the Revolution and the Reign of Terror which followed are well known and in hindsight rightly criticized. However, the Revolution was well received in many Protestant quarters, at least in its ideals if not in its reality. Protestants welcomed with favor the Revolution which brought about their emancipation from the intolerance and persecution at the hands of the church (Vovelle, 2006: 22).

Not until 1905 and the legal separation of churches and state was there a positive proclamation of the freedom of conscience, the free exercise of religion, and the neutrality of the state. The Law of Separation of Churches and State (Loi concernant la Séparation des Églises et de l’État) was enacted in 1905 in fulfillment of the French Revolution’s attempt to remove the Roman Catholic Church as the state religion. The law abrogated the 1801 Napoleonic Concordat with the Vatican, disestablished the Roman Catholic Church, ended centuries of religious turmoil, declared state neutrality in religious matters, and continues as a subject of debate and dissension 100 years later with the emergence of Islam as the second largest religion in France. Today, France is a laïque (secular) nation, juridically established in 1905 and enshrined constitutionally in 1946 and 1958.

When we understand the history of religion in France, it should be unsurprising to discover that many French people harbor resentment, hatred, indifference, or opposition toward religion. Guy Coq reminds us that it is undeniable that religious memory is full of wounds and that images from the past continue to present obstacles to a good understanding of the gospel. Even more, these negative images feed onerous prejudices against religion today and sociologists have provided precise analysis on religious cultural changes in democratic and laïque France (2003: 305). It can be argued from a study of French history that religion as experienced in France needed to be removed from its place in the political sphere. As a consequence, however, religion in general declined and became a private affair, and 20th-century ideologies rushed in to fill the void. These ideologies lacked the power to sustain and satisfy, and some led to untold suffering and loss of life.

The growth of evangelicalism in France has been well documented. Alfred Dittgen provides statistics which show that the overall number of Protestants in France, about one million, remained practically unchanged between 1980 and 2005. What changed was the reduction in the number of Protestants in historic confessions and the increase of evangelical Protestants. This leads Dittgen to declare that “Protestantism was ‘saved’ by the evangelicals” (2007: 16). André Pownall examines the second half of the 20th century with a focus on Paris and its suburbs. He describes the region transformed from a desert to a well-watered garden as evangelical churches took root (2005: 47). He surveys the religious history of Paris along with the development of the city and the construction of new urban centers to meet the population growth. The Paris agglomeration (petite couronne) grew to ten million inhabitants by the beginning of the 21st century (2005: 51–52). The CNEF claims that since 1970, more than 1750 Protestant evangelical churches have been planted in France with a total of 2521 evangelical churches now in France, a church for every 29,000 inhabitants (CNEF, 2017). Certainly, the growth of evangelicalism and the progress made is encouraging. However, it should not mask the reality that evangelicals remain underrepresented in France. Pownall reflects on the wisdom of the strategy of targeting the Paris region. He notes that results, with different strategies, have been modest among a population largely closed to the gospel and wonders if it is time to target those more open to the gospel (2005: 72).

The CNEF, which represents the majority of evangelicals in France, has written extensively on laïcité although many of their writings require a knowledge of the French language (CNEF, 2013). Concerning the law of 1905, evangelicals consider themselves “the principal beneficiaries of this legal structure, commend the balance and pacification which result from it, and affirm their attachment to article one concerning the freedom of conscience and the free exercise of religions” (Choisnet, 2018). The application of the law concerning religious questions—including Jewish kippahs, Islamic veils, Christian crosses—continues to be decided in the courts. Gaining insight into French history and culture will not be accomplished overnight. Yet it cannot be ignored and is necessary in order to have effective ministry in a laïque nation.

Missiological implications

Coq observed that secular society, even disillusioned, seems more favorable to the discovery of the good news than a religious society which constrains consciences (2003: 308). If he is correct about a favorable reception for the good news in secular society, how does that provide direction for engagement in mission in this context? Andrew Walls reminds us that “for a good part of the world, to hear the words American Missions is to hear first the word American” (1996: 22). Allen Koop researched the American evangelical effort in France after World War II. His observations are relevant and should be taken to heart by anyone considering ministry in France. Koop described the difference between France and the United States in that the United States “still left plenty of room for religion. Twentieth-century France, however, threatened Christianity with a harsh climate” (1986: 5). This harsh climate took its toll on eager but unprepared missionaries who were viewed by the French “as part of the new American invasion” (1986: 10). The difficulty of engaging in ministry was complicated by the backgrounds and unpreparedness of the missionaries. Koop observes that “while their work in France took them to urban areas, most missionaries had been raised in a rural or small-town environment. . . . Only a very few of the missionaries to nominally Catholic France had made their own conversion from a Catholic religious background in America” (1986: 11). He further notes that “aside from their general education, most missionaries received little specific preparation for their work in France” (1986: 11). Many of these “missionaries, often young and inexperienced, arrived with visionary goals of evangelizing France, only to find how poorly prepared they were for living in a new culture where even ordinary activities like taking the metro to language study could be trying experiences” (1986: 12).

The following proposals are merely suggestive and are no guarantee of fruitful ministry for those who sense a call to ministry in France. Neither do they provide assurance that those who follow these recommendations will succeed in acclimating to life in another culture. Americans leave a nation saturated by religion and with a massive evangelical population for a nation where religion is marginalized and Protestants of all stripes lag behind Muslims in number. There is also the realization that cross-cultural competencies and foreign languages cannot be fully learned in a classroom. Acquiring cross-cultural competency and language proficiency is the work of a lifetime in the place of ministry. And while language acquisition and cultural adaptation are essential, they must be accompanied by humility and by an understanding of the context in which one serves and the reception which awaits them. Adeney suggests that “a humble spirit of openness to God and the stranger may be our most valuable asset in a foreign culture” (1995: 28). He emphasizes that “if you can handle the stress, your strangerhood becomes a powerful stimulus to understanding yourself, your own culture and the new world presented to your senses” (1995: 140).

For some cross-cultural ministry challenges, there is no training, no counsel, and no warnings that will fully prepare someone for ministry. One of the greatest challenges in adjusting to a new culture is learning a new language and gaining the right to be heard. The complexity of life and ministry in France requires deep consideration of history, culture, and language. Hiebert affirms that languages must be studied “to learn how they see their world. The danger is that we constantly translate their terms into English and in so doing, miss the worldview implicit in their language” (2008: 91). It may be shocking to discover “that people live not in the same world with different labels attached to it but in radically different conceptual worlds” (2008: 15). This follows Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf on linguistic relativity and the hypothesis that “difference in thought content . . . would be spectacularly revealed by comparison of different language structures” (Whorf, 1964: 26–27).

In the 18th century when Voltaire’s writings were being read throughout Europe, French was considered the diplomatic language. In France today, the Ministry of Culture and Communication has a special responsibility to ensure the preeminence of French and its contribution to social unity. There are no shortcuts to language learning and the reality is that some people will never learn a language well enough to clearly communicate. Michael Griffiths recounts his experience with which many can identify. He states, “In spite of all we heard in training, and despite our having taken a language-learning course with the Summer Institute of Linguistics, nothing had prepared us for the shock of finding ourselves so utterly useless in our ability to evangelize or teach the Bible” (2004: 123). Cross-cultural workers must be given a realistic picture of the pitfalls and struggles in learning a new language and, as much as possible, have some idea of their own language-acquisition abilities. Even though adult language learners might never be mistaken for nationals by their speech, they might benefit from language testing before they launch into the endeavor. Without a sufficient mastery of the French language, without the expansion of a speaker’s linguistic and cognitive competency, cross-cultural workers will not be able to understand or engage in complex discussions of issues which concern French people. These discussions concern religious questions and center on history, on current events and challenges to laïcité in the 21st century, on the suspicions of a society fearful of immigration, and on religious perceptions formed through centuries of chaotic relations between church and state. French people must be met where they are before they can be pointed to the hope of the gospel.

North American missionaries are often baffled by the reception they receive in France. This might be especially true if one has had experience in other places that were more welcoming to Americans, to evangelicals, and to missionaries. France has proved itself less welcoming than many other fields of service. French writer Yves Lacoste states that “one must consider evangelical churches as agents of geopolitical influence from the quarters of American leaders” (2005: 6). Others are more guarded. Michael Mallèvre elaborates the commonalities in doctrine and values between Catholics and evangelicals which might lead to a “co-belligerence against pervasive relativism” (2015: 108).

At this juncture, it might be helpful to outline specific considerations for those who sense a calling to minister in secular France with the particularities of French culture, the place of religion, and with differences in thinking, behavior, and attitudes (Bjork, 2014: 50). First, along with language, culture, and history studies required in cross-cultural settings, one must understand the challenges of ministry in a society that has taken great pains to separate religion from the public sphere. One American missionary who spent years in France states, “In France, generations of religious and ideological conflicts led to what some have labeled ‘utter secularity,’ devoted to the destruction and replacement of Christianity” (Bjork, 2014: 51). Someone coming from the United States, where Congress opens its sessions with prayer, will be bewildered by the virtual absence of any religious language in political discourse. This requires an understanding of secularization as a process that inevitably occurs once the sacred no longer dominates and determines a society’s orientation. French theorists contribute to better understanding the distinctiveness of secularization in France and its relation to laïcité. Olivier Roy argues for distinguishing between secularization as a phenomenon of society that does not require any political implementation and laïcité as a political choice which defines in an authoritative and legal manner the place of religion in society (2005: 19–20). He argues that laïcité is specific to France and incomprehensible in Great Britain where customs agents can wear the veil, as well in the United States, where no president can be elected without speaking of God (2005: 29). Secularization results in “the marginalization of the church, repression of the Christian narrative, an increasing alienation of our culture from its Christian past, and a great deal of timidity within the church” (Paas, 2012). As a process, secularization is progressively accomplished in all Western democracies. However, in its narrow, more French sense of laïcité, it is the transformation of relations between religion and the state, and signifies the refusal of subjugation of the political to the religious, or vice versa.

Second, in France the process of secularization, the natural and progressive detachment of society from religiosity, must be understood alongside laïcité, the legal imposition of separation between the church and the state in 1905. Laïcité is a complex idea which has evolved in meaning. Monod in his book, Sécularisation et laïcité, demonstrates that although laïcité might be considered a variant of secularization, French laïcité has its specificities which arise from its history (2007: 7). The 21st century has reopened the debate on the place of religion in society which had been settled for most of the 20th century. Issues surrounding Islam were the catalyst for the renewed debate on laïcité. Among the questions raised concerning Islam and its place in French society, perhaps none is more important than the question of Islam’s compatibility in Western democracy. The question of the compatibility of Islam with French values of liberty was raised one hundred years ago regarding Catholicism. There are skeptics who doubt that Islam can imitate Catholicism’s accommodation and renounce its global vision of world domination. We find case-by-case application of laïcité as new issues arise. There are almost daily references to laïcité in newspapers, on Twitter, and in symposiums. The government is presently in consultation with representatives from major religions with one of the main objectives identified as the reduction of foreign influences. The current president Emanuel Macron has been asked to clarify his understanding of laïcité and has stressed that laïcité is not a struggle against religion (Le Figaro, 2018). At the same time, he envisages a reform of the law of 1905 on the separation of churches and state in order to adapt it to the surge of Islam (L’Express, 2018).

Third, cross-cultural workers should be prepared for the kind of welcome they will receive. This aspect was touched on earlier but needs repeating. Missiologists agree that “evangelical Christianity is seen as an Anglo-Saxon imposition on France together with the cultural, linguistic and economic ‘imperialisms’ perceived to be eroding the French way of life” (Johnstone and Mandryk, 2001: 256). Many French people view evangelicals in the same vein as cults. When this writer lived in Laon, France in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) rented a property near our house. In the minds of many French people, the only things that distinguished us from Mormons were the white shirts of the young missionaries and some of their taboos. What linked us was our nationality, our accent, and our non-affiliation with the Catholic Church.

Little has been said about strategies to reach French people with the gospel. The reason is simple. There is no one strategy to employ that will guarantee fruitful ministry. There are serious barriers to developing cross-cultural relationships. After successful language learning, after successful cultural acquisition, and after successful study of French history and ministry context, what is next and what is necessary? How do you build relationships with people in another culture, in another language? Americans will need the eyes and advice from nationals in order to discover the best way to initiate friendships. Adeney observed that most people upon entering another culture seek out those of their own culture to understand the new context. He warns against the danger of thinking that “cultural skills are theoretical ‘facts’ that must be understood before they can be applied effectively” (1995: 49). He concludes that “the most lasting results of your sojourn in another culture are likely to derive from the relationships you make” (1995: 57). These relationships will not automatically provide deep understanding into culture, or into the concept of laïcité in France. There must be patient and deliberate effort to listen, to study, and to comprehend the mental constructs of French thinking. Without these relationships, however, cross-cultural workers will remain adrift and operate out of their own thought processes and backgrounds.

Ministry in France has considerable obstacles to overcome. Past church-planting efforts were largely spearheaded by foreigners after which nationals were expected to take over and provide direction and support for the churches. Daniel Liechti believes this separation of responsibilities presents considerable hindrances for church multiplication (1998: 24). He believes it would be wiser to have teams composed of French and foreign co-laborers according to their gifting and not based on national origin or financial support. There is likewise the observation that it seems difficult for a church to penetrate areas with the gospel where there are more than ten thousand inhabitants and the church risks losing its visibility. Liechti provides statistics which show that the greatest concentration of evangelical churches is in Alsace and in regions where the Huguenots were prominent. These disparities lead him to propose the necessity of the strategic planting of new churches (1998: 27). He also observes that there are too many full-time workers occupied by the task of maintaining existing churches to the detriment of the need of creating new churches. He asserts that priorities must be rebalanced to free up workers with the support of their churches for developing the process of creating daughter churches (1998: 30). French Christians should be encouraged to continue the work they have begun. They will normally be the best evangelists and church planters.

We close with the Christian conviction that the gospel enters this world of religious disenchantment in the person of Jesus Christ. We are grateful for those men and women who sense a call and have a burden to reach the French people with the gospel. At the same time, we must insist that consideration be given to France’s long religious history, to the particular challenges of ministering in a secular context where religion has been marginalized, to the necessity of genuine partnership with French believers, and to the competencies required to minister effectively in a less than welcome environment. While we recognize the sovereignty of God in accomplishing his eternal purposes, we likewise take seriously our responsibility as co-laborers in the glorious task of making Christ known to the nations.