Notre Dame de la Garde, Marseille
Americans will show surprise, and maybe distain before the French policy known as laïcité, literally “lay-ness”. It is not quite the same as secularization, which is “the process whereby religious thinking, practices and institutions lose social significance.”[1] As in America it is any official or government-sponsored establishment of religion that is prohibited (the First Amendment to the Constitution). Unlike the U.S., the lay-ness doctrine has been interpreted to proscribe extensively any appearance of an official endorsement of a particular religion. In 1962 the U. S. Supreme Court issued a decision which forbade state officials to compose an official school prayer or encourage reciting one in that place of learning. “Composing” and “reciting” are not quite as stringent as in France, which prohibits almost any sign of religion, including Muslim veils and even Roman Catholic earrings, in schools or in any public venue.
President Macron’s decision to attend a mass in Marseille has been met with considerable hostility from those who are most sensitive to lay-ness. But things are not crystal-clear. Macron is trying to raise money to restore church buildings (we all remember the dreadful fire in Notre Dame de Paris). His argument is not that he is establishing a particular religion but that he is respecting France’s “religious heritage”, which includes historic buildings. The state regularly subventions religious entities such as singing groups, pipe organs and Christian conscientious objectors.
We do not know exactly what are Macron’s personal convictions. We do know that he is heavily influenced by France’s leading Protestant philosopher, Paul Ricœur. Macron has taken pains to say he will not be at the mass as a Catholic nor will he be “practicing” religion. Most Americans do not balk at a chaplain to the Congress, a President who regularly attends mass, a Senator who is a practicing Mormon, the occasional Scripture quote on the courtroom wall, or a speech which ends “… may God bless America”. They do not consider this to be a state-establishment of religion.
There are important historical reasons for the development of laïcité. The Huguenots often argued for it, based on their view of Romans 13 which states that government exists to establish justice, not to endorse a particular religion (be it the author Paul’s Jewish heritage or his Christian faith). It should be said that one of their principal intentions was to keep Roman Catholicism at bay. Unfortunately, they went too far, especially by proclaiming government to be neutral. As one (Protestant) sociologist has argued, the claim to neutrality is not neutral! Laïcité is in fact a kind of religion.
It would appear that Macron’s decision fits within a reasonable view of lay-ness. But it would also appear that the pretense of neutrality must be exposed for what it is. Our seminary in Aix-en-Provence will help future ministers navigate these troubled waters. They will do so by careful biblical interpretation and by seeking the promised divine wisdom (James 1:5).
William Edgar
Professeur Associé Faculté Jean Calvin
[1] B. R. Wilson, Religion in Secular Society (1966).