Dr. Martin Accad is the president of the Near East School of Theology, Beirut, Lebanon, where he serves as a professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations. He is also an affiliate professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena (CA). Accad received his DPhil in Christian-Muslim Relations after receiving an MPhil in Greek and Syriac Patristics in 1998, both from the University of Oxford (UK). He teaches and publishes in the fields of Islam, Middle Eastern Christianity, contextual hermeneutics, Christian-Muslim relations, and peacebuilding. Martin is also heavily involved in grassroots dialogue and peacebuilding activism with Christian and Muslim faith actors, political activists, and other public figures in Lebanon.

This interview was conducted by Luka Renić, editor for Dialogue Across Borders, in October 2025 as part of a DAB project on personal status laws in the Middle East. The interview touches upon the confessional system in Lebanon, personal status laws, and Protestant communities in the Lebanese context.

Excerpt

LR: Dr. Accad, thank you for this opportunity and for your time. I am currently working on a project focused on comparative personal status law systems in the MENA region, including Lebanon. From what I’ve gathered so far, there are about 18 historically recognized confessions in Lebanon—starting with Decree 60 L.R. from 1936—in addition to a few other ones that were added later. Could you please tell me a bit about what distinguishes these officially recognized sects and confessions from other communities in Lebanon? And how does that difference show up in the legal system, especially when it comes to personal status laws?

MA: The legally recognized communities each have their own courts that handle personal status matters—that’s really the main difference. Those courts take care of everything related to marriage, divorce, spousal support, and child custody. In the Christian courts, they also deal with adoption, which isn’t something covered in the Muslim courts. In the Muslim courts, they also handle inheritance cases, which is not part of the Christian personal status law.

LR: There are different Christian traditions in Lebanon, and one of them is the Protestant community. Is it correct that Protestants have a single personal status law, even though there are multiple Protestant factions in Lebanon? Could you explain how that works?

MA: The Protestant faith, by its nature, isn’t centralized—there’s no single hierarchy or uniform structure. You’ve got different forms of governance: there’s the Presbyterian system, the Congregational system, which is more democratic, and the Episcopal system, which has a bit more hierarchy. There are also many free churches—newer evangelical ones—that have very little centralized authority. But overall, the Protestant movement, as a principle, has always distanced itself from political power and from the kinds of issues handled by personal status courts. So, for Protestants to have their own courts for personal status matters is kind of a paradox—it’s not something they would have chosen themselves if given the option. It was more or less imposed on them because of how Lebanon’s system was structured—originally under the millet system. Basically, if you’re not part of that system, you don’t exist politically.

LR: You're saying that the system is forcing the Protestant community to organize itself in this manner because otherwise people wouldn't be able to regulate their personal status affairs?

MA: Exactly. As a matter of principle, Protestants would never choose this kind of system—it just doesn’t align with their core values, and they’ve never really been comfortable with it. But it’s something we have to deal with. Because Protestantism is so decentralized, you end up with many different offshoots—many small churches, each one operating independently. Most of these churches only recognize authority within their own local congregation; there’s no higher body overseeing them.

Unlike other Christian denominations that have a patriarch, an archbishop, or someone in charge who can represent them and communicate directly with the government, Protestants don’t have that kind of structure. Instead, all the Protestant communities are represented by the president of the Supreme Council of the Evangelical Churches in Syria and Lebanon. That president acts as the official representative before the government for all these groups—but he doesn’t actually have authority over them.

LR: How does the court system for the Protestants work? How are the courts comprised?

MA: In addition to the Supreme Council, which has this sort of political representative responsibility, there is the Protestant court, where you have a primary court and a cassation court of appeals. This is the standard structure. But the laws that legislate civil family issues are basically a small volume that contains the legal code. There is an elected head of the court, and then you have other "judges" for the different court levels, but most of them aren’t actually legally trained. They usually have legal advisors or consultants who help guide the process. Over time, of course, once someone has been in that role for a while—maybe they’ve served as a secondary judge before moving into a leadership position—they get pretty familiar with the legal code. There is always this underlying tension between the legal side and the pastoral side of the work, because all the judges are pastors. It’s similar to the Maronite Church, where judges are also priests. The difference is that in the Maronite Church, priests receive some legal training—they study canon law as part of their seminary education—whereas in the Protestant Church, there’s nothing like that.