Dramatic changes or distortion of the truth?

"Vijesti" published on February 24th Text which deals with the growth of religiosity in Montenegrin society: "How We Met God: Dramatic Changes in Religion in Montenegro in the Last 30 Years". In my opinion, the title itself, but also the approach and content, deserve a comment. And that, with all due respect to the journalists who wrote the article - the negative one. I am writing it seven days after the publication of the aforementioned text, after I have let the dust of the first impressions settle. First of all, it is a negative title that suggests to the reader the drama of social changes, the kind that is mentioned and pronounced (in the local journalistic literature) only when it comes to some decadent or threatening phenomenon, dangerous to citizens. Such a thing does not correspond to the traditional presence of religion in the history of Montenegro, nor to its importance in forming the culture and identity of all the peoples who live here. The aforementioned "dramatic" is inappropriate, but so is the mild irony in the intonation of the sentence that our (s)ighting of God "from yesterday". What is happening under the title is no more appropriate than the title itself.

1. This analysis of Montenegrin religiosity begins with comparisons of the current state and that of 30 years ago, and this will prove to be the starting point for painting the aforementioned “drama”. Now, if we were to investigate the use of mobile phones or social networks, satellite TV signals or cars with automatic transmissions, then the chronological reference to the 90s of the 20th century would be quite appropriate. Because the listed technological phenomena either did not exist in Montenegro before that, or they were only in their initial traces. However, only someone who clearly did not want or was not able to gain objective insight can “measure” the presence of religion in this region with such a short time frame. I leave it to the readers of this review to judge for themselves who is responsible for this, researchers from Germany or “Vijesti” that conveyed it to us in this form? Since there have been traces of human civilization on the territory of today's Montenegro, or - somewhat later - since there have been forms of state under local, Slavic administration, until today, we hardly know about the society or the monuments of its existence, which did not have a religious expression. So now you see what a "dramatic" disproportion all those millennia of ancient, medieval and modern religiosity are here, with attempts to see that phenomenon from the perspective of some three decades?

2. With all due respect to the creators of the WVS map and the authors of the categorizations it presents to us, we must note that it is, at the very least, research-biased to draw valid conclusions based only on the “three waves”. At least when it comes to a centuries-old undulating spiritual and cultural sea, such as Montenegro. And that the Protestant world is characterized by rationalism, secularism and self-expression, while Islamic countries are marked by a greater attachment to tradition, so we probably knew that even without the “dramatic” presentation of the WVS map? And I guess we in Montenegro have some kind of spiritual recognizability of our own, which deprives us of the need to be (forcibly) pushed “either into Scandinavia or Saudi Arabia”? And it is hard to escape the impression that this was exactly the intention of the chosen interlocutor (research commentator) of “Vijesti”. It is a kind of “Procrustean bed” into which someone is stuffing the phenomenon of religiosity in Montenegro, and especially the Serbian Orthodox Church. Either you will resemble the nice Protestants from northern Europe, or you will resemble the Middle Ages and Central Asia. For us, there is no third option.

3. It is in this direction that we should understand the crucifixion “between Scandinavian countries on one side and Zimbabwe, Turkey and Iran on the other” to which Montenegro is nailed by psychologist and communicologist Radoje Cerović, answering a journalist’s question to comment on the WVS map. Cerović also speaks of the “dramatic” decline of secular-rational values ​​at the beginning of the 21st century, but nowhere else but in Montenegro! And I am writing this reaction precisely because I think it is wrong to turn a blind eye to the fact that numerous scientists are stating a general “de-secularization of the world”, of the entire world - precisely in the period of the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century (I wrote about this here two years ago). So when you hear Peter Berger say that "the religious impulse, the search for meaning that transcends the limited space of empirical existence in this world - is an unchanging constant of human existence" - then all your speculations about socio-economic differences, (dis)trust in institutions, the devastation of the educational system ... as reasons for the increased religiosity of humanity in the 21st century, somehow "dramatically" fall flat. Isn't that right? Or should we accept Cerović's thesis that the entire world (today a well-connected "global village") is turning to religion for one reason, and Montenegro, in the middle of that world, for some completely different reasons?

4. Furthermore, Cerović states that the return to religion in Montenegro is, among other things, caused by the “historical lack of stable and credible institutions of society”, then by the “long history of relying on “informal rules” (such as the “code of honor”)… So wait, if we have a “historical lack of institutions of society” – how could we then survive as a society, as an emancipated community? Cerović does not want to say, although he knows it well, that it was the Church that represented the authentic and civilized social institution that, by force of circumstances, replaced all others, and which in the new century gave birth to and founded the institutions of the state here. Therefore, the attitude towards religion, in this respect, cannot be a “return” or some kind of “step back” for us in Montenegro, but rather a reliance on something proven, certain, even if it were defined as pre-political. Isn't the "long history of relying on informal rules" (I see the "code of honor" as a value derived from spiritual heritage) precisely the prerequisite for the survival of humanity (humanity, heroism...) in this region? What exactly is "dramatic" about the fact that the local citizenry, beneath the layers of institutions and titles compromised first by one-party and then transitional politics, recognizes those values ​​that have kept this community alive and humane?

And here we come to the insight into the unsustainability, here the obvious effort, of opposing rational science and religion, one against the other. Because, it was the Church as an institution, here in Montenegro, that was the initiator and collaborator both in the field of technological improvement (printing and the Church; historical science and the Church; media pluralism and the Church) and in the field of education and training (I also wrote about this here 5 years ago). Opposing science and religion, both here and in world history in general (Newton, Copernicus, Tesla, Pupin...) is precisely this: a scientifically unfounded business.

5. It seems to me that this text in "Vijesti" was written neither for science nor for general religiosity, but because of the media attack on the reputation that the Serbian Orthodox Church has in society, and which is so obvious (both with and without numerous polls, which all say the same thing) that it stings the eyes of many. I have arguments for that:

As far as I know, the basic journalistic rules of objectivity stipulate that you must find a way to include the position of the person about whom you are writing such an exhaustive analysis. And here, the Serbian Orthodox Church is not mentioned in passing, but is presented as the "main villain" of the story. Even if it were a matter of principle about the issue of religiosity in Montenegro, it would be appropriate to create space for representatives of churches and religious communities to say something about it. And if that is debatable and if it is not mandatory, then it is certainly beyond any doubt that the text that slanders the Serbian Orthodox Church for tax evasion (a notorious untruth), for manipulating mentally ill persons (a very offensive untruth), and for military intelligence work (a political untruth) must have had some counter-position. Here, the editorial staff of "Vijesti" violated not church laws, but journalistic laws, leaving Mr. Cerović himself in the deleted space to tell lies about the Serbian Orthodox Church. One might think that we from the Church want to determine the titles and interlocutors for the editorial staff of "Vijesti". No. We only react to texts that are (ugly) written about us, without us as the interlocutor.

Cerović (in)directly blames the Church and the renewed religiosity in society for the obvious divisions and upheavals in society. And this is because “the post-communist transition was abrupt and unjust”. According to Cerović, such a transition brought “stress and insecurity”, and a return to “traditionalism and collectivism”. And all of this, as he sees it, is “incompatible with the development of society that we are witnessing in some Western countries”. You guessed it, Cerović is referring to the Scandinavian countries.

Personally, I would have nothing to praise about the aforementioned political “post-communist transition” in Montenegro. It is full of inconsistencies and injustice. But one thing is certain: it was less abrupt and much more just than the communist one, whose revolutionary slogan was: “in short order”. However, since there is no social transition that does not bring stress and insecurity, I do not understand what is wrong with the fact that the community has largely returned to tradition and the collective? Is the problem in this “return”, or in the fact that in our case this “traditional and collective” is Orthodox (mostly Serbian, St. Sava and Kosovo-Vow), and not Protestant, Scandinavian?

I am a great admirer of both Protestant and Scandinavian, but I wonder: when did we agree to replace our tradition and collective memory (such as they are) with someone else's? Or: what are so many non-Protestant and non-Scandinavian cultures looking for in Euro-Atlantic integrations, long integrated into the EU and NATO? For Cerović, there is obviously no dilemma: digitalization, modern communication are in vain for us, as long as we return to our own tradition. Or did I miss something?

6. The Serbian Orthodox Church "uses social problems (inequality, corruption, weak institutions) to attract young people"! This is what a psychologist and communicologist says. I have several serious questions regarding his statement. First - should the Church wait for someone else to solve these problems, and only then, with the permission of the institutions of secular society (which, lo and behold, are based on freedom of preaching and the separation of the Church from the state in organization and action), should it begin to missionaryize? Second, did the Lord Jesus Christ, with his apostles, preach his Truth about life in circumstances that were spared from these listed social problems? Third, does the negative answers to the previous two questions imply that the Church (like all other preachers of spiritual values) abuses these problems, or on the contrary, does it act despite them, against them, advocating something that is above all that?

Cerović heaps unfounded accusations that the Church manipulates people with mental health problems, offering them help and advice, "actively discouraging them from the idea of ​​turning to professionals". I wonder who can benefit from such untruths? The voice of the Church is very present in the public, and the work of Orthodox pastoral and counseling centers is transparent and is based precisely on the cooperation of clergy and professionals (doctors, psychologists, psychotherapists). There are not a small number of such experts who, from the medical side, call for cooperation and complementing medical and clergy attention to sick and vulnerable people, all according to the principle: let everyone do their part.

Cerović did not hesitate to portray all established forms of church communication in a negative light and to warn about their harmful effects on the consciousness of individuals and the collective, but from the universal streams of the church mission, he emphatically singled out the role of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, for which he says that the state has "deliberately and consciously" ceded its space of operation. What space? Free movement? Freedom of public speech? Opportunities for humanitarian work? Legally guaranteed possibility of establishing church schools? Exemptions from taxes for those topics on which other religious organizations do not pay taxes? So, what state work is the Serbian Orthodox Church performing in Montenegro today?

Let's take the most frequently abused and misinterpreted case: was the declared believer of the Serbian Orthodox Church and then part-time teacher at the Cetinje Seminary, Dr. Zdravko Krivokapić, proposed to the Parliament of Montenegro as the Prime Minister-designate by the then President of Montenegro, Milo Đukanović, or by the abbot of a monastery? Did that proposal to the Parliament occur after consultations in a dormitory or after a conversation in the president's office? What detail in the recent political and parliamentary life of Montenegro has been unconstitutionally or illegally replaced by church activity? No communication expert in the world, not even Mr. Cerović, can answer these questions.

However, that does not prevent him from speculating and mythologizing his anti-church beliefs. When he says that the Church does not pay taxes, and that its financial operations are not transparent, he is not telling the truth. And it is difficult to arrive at good analytical assumptions based on untruths. And I will call out the journalists again: if there was no space or need for someone to contact the accounting department of the Metropolitanate, "Vijesti" could have received "confirmation" of Cerović's thesis about the Church's tax-exempt status from the competent state services. But that was also lacking. In my opinion, there was also a lack of editorial caution towards some of the positions with which Cerović enters the zone of slander and spreading hatred:

"The Church has proven to be very effective and aggressive in initiatives ranging from lobbying and using its own privileged position for enormous political influence, to intelligence and military propaganda activities to which the Montenegrin public has often been exposed, both in the 1990s and today. The Church's non-taxability, as well as its complete operational and financial non-transparency, leave it with enormous scope for covert and inappropriate action".

Since this entire conversation between Cerović and "Vijesti" was permeated with an unscientifically posed rivalry between religion and science (especially the discipline of natural sciences), I wonder, does anyone have scientific evidence for the "intelligence and military-propaganda" work of the Church? Then, how many unknowns are there about the "secret and inappropriate" activities of the Church? And finally, to which "religion" does Cerović's statement belong, with an almost dogmatic conviction that the truth is that which cannot be proven by anything?

February 28, 2025