Dear Friends, participants of the International Conference on the 50th Anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act.

I am grateful and honored for this opportunity to greet you at the beginning of the third conference day, as we are searching for the Spirit of Helsinki then and now. In doing do, I bring you also the greetings of Archbishop Tapio Luoma of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland.

At the end of March 1970, a small group of men gathered in a church owned conference center close to the city of Turku, bit less than 200 kilometers North-East from here. The meeting was the first theological consultation between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church. Years later, one of the Finnish participants remember how strange and even difficult it was to shake hands with the Russian counterparts. Before this, his last encounter with them had been on the battlefront during the War. Indeed, the Finnish-Russian Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue served for years the détente in the sphere of church relations.

The contacts between the Finns and the Moscow Patriarchate were established as early as the 1960s, and the preparations of the dialogue were led with the firm vision and leadership of Archbishop Martti Simojoki of Finland. His original vision underlined the nature of the dialogue as doctrinal discussions concentrating on the content of the Christian faith. Besides this, one of the main goals for the Finns was to build connections with persecuted small Lutheran churches and congregations in the Soviet Union – that is, those in Ingria, Karelia, Estonia and Latvia.

As such, the Finnish-Russian theological consultation followed the ecumenical ethos of the time, created by the Second Vatican Council in mid 1960s.  The Finnish-Russian dialogue had however another dimension as well. At the insistence of the KGB, the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, wanted to include the theme of peace practically in every round of the dialogue until die Wende at the end of 1980s.

Under these circumstances, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland had to strike a balance between its ecumenical idealism and geopolitical realism. And indeed, there has been a long-going argue about how to interpret the nature of the Finnish-Russian bilateral dialogue: were they purely theological or how should we understand the theme of peace running throughout two decades. A this point, it is good to understand  that no encounter between churches ever takes place in a total vacuum, but rather in interaction with the historical, political and cultural factors of the time. This has been also the case in the Finnish-Russian Lutheran-Orthodox relations.

Despite the political constrains of the consultations, the dialogue fostered friendships and enabled to deepen a genuine understanding between the two churches. It therefore had also real significance in terms of reconciliation, détente and ecumenical processes.

In 2014, the landscape changed. After the Russian Occupation of Crimea, no official dialogue meetings have taken place between the Finnish Lutheran and Russian Orthodox Churches.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 came as a deep shock to Finns. Memories of World War II and Russia’s previous invasions of Finland in past centuries were at the forefront of people’s minds. ”Not again, not anymore”. What we had taken for granted – trust and friendship – was ruined overnight. The reaction was quick and united: the friendly relationship with Russia was abandoned, as was Finland´s military non-alignment. Finland joined NATO and began strongly supporting Ukraine’s defense against the illegal invader. The connections between the Moscow Patriarchate turned from cooperation to criticizing its leadership´s role as Putin´s altar boy.

Back home, the traditional role of the Lutheran Church – which still today represents more than 60% of the population – has been to support Finnish society during times of crisis. Many structures have been created for this purpose during decades of peace, besides the spiritual mission of the church. The Lutheran Church is responsible e.g. for maintenance of general cemeteries. Pastors, deacons and other church workers provide pastoral care and material aid to people in need both in times of private and public crises.

The Lutheran Church is however not doing this alone. As Finland has become increasingly multicultural and multireligious country, it is natural to cooperate with other Christian churches and religious communities. As a result of this, the spiritual support provided by religious communities as part of the overall psychological and psychosocial support in disruptions has been defined and delegated to their responsibility in the latest version of the Security Strategy of the Society published earlier this year.

At his concluding words of the Helsinki Conference in August 1975, President Urho Kekkonen of Finland stated that the Helsinki Final Agreement “…represents a serious attempt to lay the foundations on which both we and future generations can build a better world than the one we live in today.”

And indeed, one of the reasons for Finland’s – as most of Europe’s – prosperity and well-being for decades has been that our societies have been able to spend a historically small proportion of their budget on military defense. Instead, they have been able to invest in e.g. healthcare, education, infrastructure and the arts.

Now this balance is shifting. While we must ensure our ability to defend ourselves at the times of crisis, we must remain faithful for the values on which our societies´values and commitment to better life for all is built on.

In the times of insecurity and disorder it has been crucial for Finland that both the Christian churches together as well as with the other religious communities are working together to build trust instead of polarization of fragmentation of the society. Speaking and standing for undivided human rights, human dignity that belongs to all, democracy, justice, peace, and the common good, is our shared responsibility. At the same time, we need to understand the challenges of the changing landscape, in which defining a balance between realism and idealism is needed again.

In this spirit, I wish you all a blessed and successful third day of the conference.