At the launch, my introduction to the purpose and history of the recommendations had to be short, as I was the first of fours speakers. Thus the following details had to be skiped, also not to give the impression, that the recommendations were bound to much to specific people. But now half a year later, I would like to offer my personal thank you.

Hans Ucko from Sweden with a PhD from India, programme director of WCC’s Office on „Interreligious Relations and Dialogue“ (IRRD, later „Interreligious Dialogue and Cooperation“, I stay with IRRD) for nearly 20 years from 1989-2008, brought the idea up in one of the yearly staff meetings between PCID and IRRD. This is why I took the liberty to invite him to the launch of the recommendations in Geneva. (see photo 1: talking to Ucko in Toulouse)

talking to Ucko in Toulouse

I also wanted to invite Mgr. Dr Felix Machado for the launch, then Undersecretary of the PCID, who traveled to Geneva quite a lot, but he lives a bit far from Geneva. Since 2008 he is back in his native country India, since 2009 as the Archbishop of Vasai.

2006 I was invited by the WCC as an expert to a small meeting in Geneva (see photo 2:). It was there when Hans Ucko – with the consent of Felix Machado – invited WEA on behalf of WCC to become part of the process.

the group in WCC headquarter

The consultation „Towards an ethical approach to conversion: Christian witness in a multi-religious world“, which was prepared by a small group meeting in Geneva, January [11-12,] 2007, took place as a larger meeting of all branches of Christianity in Toulouse, France, August [8-12,] 2007 with 45 participants. (see photo 3)

The leadership of Hans (Ucko) and Felix (Machado) in Toulouse 2007 is unforgettable! Beside achieving our business, many partcipants became friends across all theological lines. Eg the Catholic archbishop of Nepal became one of my best friends here – I just visted his cathedral recently, which was bombed by Hindu fundamentalists with three young people dying.

After Toulouse, a draft committee of the three bodies involved started to work on the text of the recommendations, following the topics listed in Toulouse. The text was revised again and again in discussion with the leadership and taking in reactions from church leaders from all over the world who got to see the text. Finally the text was taken to a third consultation in Bangkok under the title “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for a Code of Conduct “, January [25-29,] 2011, with 45 high ranking representatives of the three bodies plus church leaders and experts, which had the sole task to discuss and revise the text of the recommendations. After Bangkok, only very minor changes were agreed upon between PCID, WCC and WEA.

The project has stayed on course, while the President of PCID changed as well as the General Secretary of WCC. The responsibility for interreligious dialogue within WCC changed even twice. The majority of the staff on the side of PCID and IRRD changed within the five years. (This is why it came by chance, that at the launch I by chance happened to be the longest one working on the script committee.) This proves that the project was not just a project bound to certain people and their private interest, but was a joint need of the whole Christian community and a result of official cooperation of the largest Christian bodies.

Let me mention some further peoples and names, who were important during the process, even though surely not complete.

I mentioned Hans Ucko and Archbishop Felix Machado already.

Pentecostal Bishop Tony Richie from the USA, representing the Pentecostal voice in the process, is the only person to my knowledge, who visited all three major consultations in Lariano, Toulouse and Bangkok, plus one of the smaller meetings.

The process started under His Emminence Michael Cardinal Fitzgerald and His Eminence Paul Joseph Jean Cardinal Poupard as presidents of PCID. We thank them for their gracious blessings and leadership in the beginning. His Eminence Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, from France, became president of PCID in autumn 2007 and without him backing the process and its result on behalf of the largest church in the world, we would not have achieved anything.

Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata from Italy, has ‚outlived’ them all, being the Secretary of PCID since 2002 and thus bringing a lot of stability to the process. He played a major role in the final Bangkok meeting as one of the two chairs.

Later, Andrew Vissanu Thanyaanan from Thailand followed Felix Machado as Undersecretary of PCID. The experts from PCID were a great team: Ms. Khaled B. Akasheh from Jordan and Ms. Denis Chidi Isizoh from Nigeria.

Early 2008, Dr Shanta Premawardhana from Sri Lanka followed Hans Ucko as director of IRRD of WCC. He has been instrumental to ensure that the process would go on even after a major change of staff both in PCID and IRRD. A little earlier in 2007, Ms Rima Barsoum from Syria, became programme executive for Christian-Muslim relations till 2011, and she has been a constant major reminder to us all to view the code with the eyes of adherents of other religions. I am glad, that she attended the launch even so she no longer worked for WCC.

Hans Ucko got Rev Jacques Matthey, programme director of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) of WCC, involved from the beginning, as was Ms Yvette Milosevic in organising the adminstrational side.

In 2009, John Baxter Brown from the UK became consultant for evangelism of the WCC. One of his major tasks was to further the process for a code. He acted as a great bridge builder combining love for mission and love for ecumenical cooperation.

Late in 2010, Dr Shanta Premawardhana left for a new position in the USA and was not immediately replaced. Dr Mathews George, Director of the International Affairs and Public Witness kara from India, had to take over responsibility despite his already full calender of travels etc. In the midst of an incredible work load he guided the last month of the preparation of the text and organised the launch.

On WEA’s side we would have to mention especially Dr Richard Howell from India, General Secretary of the Asian Evangelical Alliance, and Godgrey Yogjahara from Sri Lanka, Executive Director of the Religious Liberty Commission.

From our WEA-side John Langlois from Guernsey, chair of the Religious Liberty Commission and member of the International Committee, and Dr Richard Howell, general secretary of the asian Evangelical Alliance joined me in Toulouse. John’s longstanding experience as a lawyer and a politian, to formulate short and concise texts, was vital to the whole project. In 2010, Dr Rosalee Velosso Ewell from Brazil, joined our team. All participants will not forget her superb ability to write minutes of the discussions and to harmonize proposed formulations.

Dr Geoff Tunnicliffe from Canada, secretary general of the WEA, encouraged and backed the process from beginning to the end and was always willing to deal with critics personally. He used his many connections towards a good end.

The new general secretary of WCC, Dr Olav Fykse Tveit from Norway, was involved in formulating a similar interreligious code in Norway before he took office. He thus backed the finalising of the process and text out of deep conviction and has to be thanked for arranging a fine and successful launch in the hall of WCC.

But beyond all these thanks to finite humans, we thank our Creator and Saviour, the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Whom we worship, and whose Holy Spirit has led us to formulate what it means to witness his message of salvation in a spirit of trust, peace and dignity. May He give us the strength to live out what we state and help to admonish wisely those amongst us who still might use unethical means in preaching the gospel.

Christian Troll SJ, Thomas Schirrmacher

Since 2006 the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the departments within the World Council of Churches and World Evangelical Alliance responsible for the relationship to other religions have worked on an ethical code for missions. Christian Troll SJ and Thomas Schirrmacher participated in the latest consultations in Bangkok, which have led to the recently published results entitled “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World – Recommendations for Conduct.” The ethical code is accessible on the internet on the website of the World Council of Churches (www.oikoumene.org).

The question of ethics in missions has in recent years increasingly been asked in intra-Christian dialogue[1] as well as in relationships between religions.[2] However, a political question has also been asked, and that is the extent to which the human right of religious freedom,[3] including the right to public self-expression on the part of religions and the right to religious conversion, may and must be limited by other human rights.[4]

The first consultation in Lariano, Italy in 2006 was interreligious. There, representatives of Christian denominations listened to adherents of different religions. In the end there was a joint avowal of religious freedom as well as an intra-Christian operational program.

When the second consultation occurred in Toulouse, France in 2007, it involved an intra-Christian assembly. The goal was to find a joint direction as well as to establish a problem catalog and a questionnaire. Questions relating to family, school, education, social and medical care, the economy, politics, legislation, and violence were discussed. In the end there was a rough outline for the impending document.[5] A list was made of which means were to be qualified as unethical with respect to missions and were thus to be rejected. Included among them were the use of violence, threats, drugs, or brainwashing, but likewise also providing material advantages or the use of police or the army to propagate a religion. From a Christian point of view, such an ethical code for missions should more precisely label forms of abuse of religious freedom and at the same time not least offer assistance to politians and governments.

A small group of about nine staff members of the Holy See, the World Council of Churches, and the World Evangelical Alliance met regularly in Genf, Bossey, and Rome from 2006 to 2011. As a result, they progressively formulated a recommended text, which in 2010 was sent to various church leaders, member churches, and commissions. Innumerable suggestions were evaluated and incorporated. The entire process was organized by three bodies, first The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID), to which delegation archbishops and other church leaders from Asia and Africa belonged, second the Office on Interreligious Relations and Dialogue of the World Council of Churches (IRRD), whose delegation also included representatives of oriental, orthodox, and Pentecostal churches in addition to evangelical church leaders. For the World Evangelical Alliance, the Religious Liberty Commission (RLC) and the Theological Commission were active. Through the inclusion of numerous church leaders from all continents, quick results were not able to be expected.

For the purpose of the third intra-Christian consultation, experts and high ranking church leaders met January 25 – 28, 2011 in Bangkok for the sole purpose of working intensively on the final text. After the Bangkok meeting only minor details in the text were worked out an amended by the highest committees of the three respective bodies through mutual agreement.

All denominations which unequivocally speak out for and advocate religious liberty are interested that within Christianity there are joint discussions about the limits of religious freedom as well as about unethical methods of missions work. In the meantime everyone is aware of the fact that with respect to the questions named there are problems in all confessions and thus in this respect a self-critical intra-Christian dialogue is called for.

Christian witness essentially includes presenting one’s own faith unfeigned to another. However, this is always to be done in a peaceful way and with deep respect for the dignity of other individuals. People who possibly want to become Christians should do this out of conviction and not in a calculating manner. They should have the opportunity to consider their decision and to make it freely and in utter trust in God. All forms of Christian witness and evangelization which do not correspond to these criteria and injure human dignity and human rights in one way or another are to be resolutely rejected as contradicting the good news of Christianity.

The code of conduct at hand does not have a canonical character. Situations in different countries and cultures are in fact so different that short, succinct statements can often not do them justice. For that reason, general guidelines have been formulated for the code.

[Deleted for reasons of space: The code of conduct at hand is in any event an unambiguous indication of the fact that the vast majority of the global Christian community clearly distances itself from every form of missions work that seeks to coerce or manipulate with psychological, financial, or physical might and power. Missions work is only justifiable within the framework of correctly understood religious freedom. It is based on the conviction that it is part of the basic dignity of an individual to be able to decide freely and concretely after careful consideration for a faith or world view one holds to be true and views to be compulsory for oneself. Daily we see people on television who use force or unfair means to spread their religion or at least attempt to do so.]

In its history, Christianity has in multiple cases employed dishonest means and has to be on guard against any relapse into former and abnormal attitudes and behavioral patterns. We thus view it as an extremely welcomed and long overdue sign that Christians now jointly and officially declare, as in the code at hand, that such methods are immoral and unchristian and thus contradict and distort the true sense of mission. Furthermore, they publicly obligate themselves to follow the principles named in the code as well as to allow their actions to be measured by them.

Paul calls upon believers in 1 Peter 3:15-17 to answer everyone’s questions and to clearly defend one’s own “hope,” also towards those who wish us evil. However, they should do this with “gentleness and respect.” People who do not hold to their convictions are not partners for dialog to be taken seriously, but there is a world of difference between peaceful and respectful propagation and a forcible spreading of one’s own conviction which does not respect the dignity of others. Christian witness is not an ethics-free space; it requires an ethical foundation which is biblically based, so that we truly do who what Christ has assigned us to do.

Umbrella organizations have been founded by the Catholic Church, the National Council of Churches, and the National Evangelical Alliance in India and Malaysia. These organizations face the state with a single voice, especially when it comes to questions relating to missions work and laws against conversion formulated to oppose them. Ostracized and discriminated against via unjust laws, Christian confessions do not work against each other but rather with and for each other.

In recent decades there have been developments in all denominations which have made this affiliation possible in the first place. On the Catholic side this began with the Declaration on Religious Freedom at the Second Vatican Council. It awards state power sole concern for the secular public welfare and once and for all rejects the idea of a ‘Catholic state’ as being contradictory to religious freedom. This also includes the dismantling of prior enemy stereotypes and controversial topics between the World Council of Churches and Evangelicals – thanks to an evangelical missiology which has become self-critical and an enhanced status awarded thought relating to missions over against political topics found in ecumenism. In the process, Churches in the south have been leading the way in building a bridge between the camps.

Let us hope that this code of conduct on missions is accompanied by regularly occurring consultations based on the model of the intra-Christian consultation in Bangkok which took place from January 25-28, 2011. In such consultations, Christian denominations should jointly scrutinize their particular conduct in missions work in a self-critical manner. On all sides, what is called for is self-critical, honest, interreligious dialog on questions of current, concrete behavior exhibited by religious groups towards each other.

[2] All codes on mission existing worldwide, secular, religious or Christian, are discussed and compared in Matthew K. Richards / Are L. Svendsen / Rainer Bless, Codes of Conduct for Religious Persuasion. The Legal Practice and Best Practices, in: International Journal for Religious Freedom (Cape Town) 3 (2010) 2, 65-104.

[3] Cf. die international academic consultation at the State University of Bamberg: Marianne Heimbach-Steins / Heiner Bielefeldt (Hg.), Religionen und Religionsfreiheit. Menschenrechtliche Perspektiven im Spannungsfeld von Mission und Konversion, Würzburg 2010.

[4] See the Oslo Declaration signed by all religions in Norway plus experts from the academic field: Oslo Declaration, Missionary Activities and Human Rights: Recommended Ground Rules for Missionary Activities, www.oslocoalition.org/mhr.php (5.7.2011).

[5] The programme is spelled out in the opening plenary in Toulouse: Thomas Schirrmacher, „But with gentleness and respect“. Why missions should be ruled by ethics, short version: in: Current Dialogue (World Council of Churches) 50 (Februar 2008), 55-66, long version under www.worldevangelicals.org/news/article.htm?id=1372 (5.7.2011), German version: „Mit Sanftmut und Ehrerbietung“. Warum die Mission von der Ethik bestimmt sein muss, in: Klaus W. Müller (Hg.), Menschenrechte – Freiheit – Mission, edition afem – missions reports 18, Nürnberg 2010, 97-119.

Download “An intra-Christian ethical code for missions: An introduction” as PDF

At a high-ranking meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) on December 9 and 10, 2010 in the Hofburg in Vienna, the OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meeting on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which addressed the topic of religious freedom within the broader framework of human rights consultations, a hushed up commotion took place.

Since Kazakhstan chaired the OSCE, the first keynote speaker was Ms. Iman Valeriya Porokhova, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a leading Russian Muslim (see http://koran-valeria.narod.ru/). The professionally recognized and personally very congenial lady called for peaceful association between religions (albeit only mentioning Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and not one of the represented minority religions, much less secular world views). She held this is possible because the universal principles of the Koran and the Sharia are supported by the Bible and the Torah. She actually mentioned very little on the topic of human rights or the human right to religious freedom.

The longer she spoke, the more her contribution became a sermon with many quotes from the Koran. According to Porokhova, Europe is moving towards its demise because it is no longer following God’s word as found in the Koran, Bible, and Torah. Rather, it is making its own laws. I believe I would have long been cut off by this point.

The climax was reached when she introduced the elimination of the death penalty as a difference between Islam and Europe. It was against the will of God, as it is set down in the holy books, that Europe abolished the death penalty. If this is not reversed, there can be no blessing upon Europe. It has to do with listening to God’s word or giving room to human rebellion. In the process, the speaker blatantly threatened Europe. Apart from that, she at the same time subordinated all other religions to Islam without qualification.

All of the 200 present (ambassadors, religious representatives, experts) remained nobly silent. Also the Muslims present, which in part represent much more liberal approaches, remained silent. Many of the representatives of the media spoke with me about this after the fact, but none reported on it.

I asked myself: What if the Apostolic Nuncio of the Holy See from the UN in Geneva, Msgr. Silvano M. Tomasi, who spoke later, had called for a reintroduction of the death penalty with reference to the Bible? And what if he had otherwise threatened Europe with judgment. Or Msgr. Michael Banach as a representative of the Holy See (as a state) with the OSCE? That would have led to great indignation among the media and, after that, there would have been sharp statements from politicians all throughout Europe that followed.

Or better yet: If I had called for something like that as a representative of the World Evangelical Alliance. I would have possibly achieved the notoriety of the religious eccentric Terry Jones, who burned a Koran. (Fortunately there is nothing like the penal law of the Sharia, i.e., a holy Christian penal law, so that no one can call for its implementation.)

For a long time I have advocated peaceful coexistence between all religions and world views, including Islam. I have often officially met with Muslim leaders throughout the world, not to mention many other contacts and confidence-building measures.

However, I often just stand shaking my head about the double standard with which secular Europe measures Islam and Christianity. In the process, it is precisely secularly oriented people who have everything to lose if such an Islamist view were to become the thing, while Christians neither call for nor promote a thing like that. Rather, on the basis of theological grounds, they justify and help to stabilize democracy, human rights, and religious freedom.

(Addendum, June 2011)

Quite some time after the meeting in Vienna, a written version of the talk has become available and can be found on the official OSCE website: http://www.osce.org/odihr/74621 The talk has indeed been shortened and changed, but one can read here nevertheless:

1. that for all practical purposes the ideas of religious freedom and human rights are not to be found,
2. that this was actually if anything an Islamic sermon ending with a collection of verses from the Koran,
3. that Islam is the only religion not invented by mankind (middle of p. 3) and the sole religion which truly has God in the center (middle of p. 4),
4. that the talk ends by saying that the Bible has been falsified (p. 6),
5. that the death penalty must be reintroduced and that adultery, the consumption of alcohol, consumption of pork, and the wearing of modern women’s clothing should be punished throughout all of Europe (p. 5).

An all this in the setting of a major human rights authority and within the context of a symposium on religious freedom!

Overall, national religious political parties currently receive about 15% of the vote. And yet as small coalition partners they have gained an astonishing amount of influence. By law there are an increasing number of Israelis who have to live as the minority of Orthodox Jews envisage, although these individuals in part actually reject the existence of a State of Israel and for this reason are for instance freed from military service. This is all the more astonishing since most Jews in Israel do not share in the following laws. This is due to the fact that they are even more liberal than members of Reform Judaism or only nominally belong to their religion, i. e., belong to the religion for reasons of ancestry. Here are some of the laws which have been passed:

Sabbath law: The Sabbath rest is also being more strictly implemented outside of Orthodox quarters by the state. The airline El-Al is not allowed to fly into or out of the country on the Sabbath. A governmental institute is developing robots able to conduct all types of work on the Sabbath that otherwise would be considered sins for people to do.

Jewish dietary laws: Hotels and restaurants have to pay ‘kosher guards’ who are to ensure that foodstuffs are not offered anywhere which do not conform to rabbinic guidelines of ‘kosher’ preparation or which, such as pork, are completely forbidden. These ‘chaplains’ are found in many areas of society, for instance in the army.

Marital law: Jewish marriages may only be conducted by rabbis, and other religious marriages may only be conducted by representatives of the respective religions. There is no such thing as a civil marriage. That is tragic for interfaith couples, of which one always – at least feignedly – has to change religions.

Law of Return: Whoever immigrates and is allowed to become an Israeli citizen is an issue decided according to strict Orthodox regulations. Reform Jews and especially Messianic Jews (Jewish Christians) are often rejected as non-Jewish. Reform Jewish rabbis are not allowed to carry out religious activities, although internationally Reform Jews represent the largest wing of the Jewish religion.

Medicine: Autopsies and transplants are almost impossible according to law.

Archaeology: Excavations are forbidden where Orthodox officials suspect Jewish graves. Important planned excavations in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Tiberius are thereby affected.

This progressive takeover of Orthodox Jewish laws in state legislation is primarily being advanced by ‘Agudath Israel’ and the ‘Schas’ which emerged from it, in which the leaders of the Talmud schools (jeshibot) and Hasidic communities set the tone.

Imagine the long path that Germany and France have taken since World War I and World War II! How good it is when politicians and societies desire peace and solidarity and not war and supremacy. Christians should thank God that he has heard their prayer for peace-loving rulers and pray that war never breaks out in Western Europe again.

Source: http://derstandard.at/1291454831863/Bundeswehr-im-Elsass

“There are reports from the Netherlands, where Jews who – for instance because they wear a yarmulke – are recognized as such and in the metropolis of Amsterdam rarely dare to go out on the street and in part no longer hold Jewish worship services in a synagogue. Rather, they hold worship services in less conspicuous private homes in order to avoid the attacks of Arab and Turkish youth. Yet this has not made its way onto the front page of any German newspaper nor has it been a leading story on television news. . . .

Anti-Semitism is imported from Islamic countries of origin
Im Malmö in Sweden everyday persecution had already reached such proportions in the spring of last year that the large part of Jewish residents had either fled the city or were seriously determined to move away or emigrate. Similar situations are known to be the case in Denmark and Norway, where there was a startling television report about a ‘notorious denunciation of Jews,’ above all in schools, which ranges ‘from jokes all the way to death threats.’ These attacks are predominantly conducted by young immigrants from Muslim countries who have imported anti-semitism from their countries of origin. This is all fueled by ongoing hate propaganda about wiping out Israel, which alleged crimes are straightforwardly identified with ‘the Jews.’ . . .

Young Muslims are venting their violent fantasies against hated ‘Zionism’ on the Jewish citizens of European countries, and they are strengthened by Arab, Turkish, and Iranian propaganda, satellite transmissions, and via local Islamist propagandists. ‘Traditional’ right-wing anti-Semitism, which is present in all of Europe as a kind of sediment and yet socially frowned upon by its immediate proximity to National Socialism, has in the process found unexpected growth. . . .

The indifference with which these encroachments is accepted is all the more confounding, as it is explained away as ‘social conflict’ or even taken with a certain understanding. In any event, Malmö‘s social democratic mayor believed he had to give Swedish Jewish communities the advice that they have to distance themselves from Israeli policies towards Palestinians – that could weaken the ire of anti-Semitic perpetrators of violence. . . .

The demonization of Israel as the sole guilty party in the Near East conflict has at precisely this point been customary for many years up to the highest political levels. But even as it became known that teachers in Norwegian schools have forgone lessons which address the Holocaust out of fear of the aggression of Muslim students, Norway’s Education Minister categorically denied that there was any connection between a ‘critique of Israel’ and anti-Semitism. In the process, it must have come to the attention of every responsible European politician that the ritual denunciation of Israel has become a gateway to acclimatizing to an anti-Semitism aimed at the destruction of the Jews. Already once, in the course of the 19^th and 20^th centuries, there was an anti-Semitism that was growing stronger as if under a burning glass, and it was based on anti-modern, anti-democratic, and anti-emancipatory resentments which finally drove Europe into self-destruction. . . .

‘Islamophobia’ is not today’s anti-Semitism:
Now that enmity towards Jews has changed its color a little but not its murderous substance, allegedly refined Europe has, in contrast, shown itself frighteningly little prepared for defense. Instead, academic specters enjoy making illustrious comparisons between anti-Semitism and ‘Islamophobia.‘ And they suggest that when it comes to the latter, we are dealing with the anti-Semitism of the present. Besides the justified fear of radical Islamic aggression in Europe, there are also certainly alarming, xenophobic, and racist emotions against Muslims as there are against Sinti and Roma and black Africans. However, anti-Semitism goes far beyond this type of aversion against ‘the other.’ It is a projection of a conspiracy theory about secret manipulators who are made responsible for all of the misfortune in the world – and it is not decreasing even though there are just 14 million Jews left on the planet. As an antithesis to the entry into the modern age which once emanated from Europe, this continues to gnaw on the center of European Enlightenment identity. It is not ‘Islamophobia’ that is the anti-Semitism of the 21^st century; rather, it is – anti-Semitism.”

Read the entire German commentary at welt.de.

When after many years I decided to pursue another doctorate, I had the privilege, as his last doctoral candidate, to profit from his enormous experience. Already showing signs of his illness, he still supervised me as if there was nothing in the world that was more important. As I grew beyond missiology and theology into religious studies and ethnology, he was able to share much with me from his wealth of experience. By the way, this same tradition has been continued by Hoheisel‘s successor, Manfred Hutter, who holds two doctorates, one in theology and another in secular religious studies (see: http://www.ioa.uni-bonn.de/abteilungen/religionswissenschaft/mitarbeiter/manfred-hutter). I recommend future religious scholars to study under him.

The outstanding religious studies scholar Gustav Mensching of Bonn had above all three students, Hans-Joachim Klimkeit and Karl Hoheisel in Bonn as well as Udo Tworuschka. Via Hoheisel (and Klimkeit) I found a connection with this tradition, as is documented by my adoption of Hoheisel’s definition of religion in Hitler’s War Religion (Vol. 1, pp. 64, 53-54, 399-400, 487, 457; additional references to Hoheisel pp. 19, 23, 30, 57, 70-72, 132, 137, 224-225, 232, 240, 505).

Together with the likewise recently deceased representative of political science and sociology, Manfred Funke (see the obituary at: http://www.thomasschirrmacher.info/archives/1654), Hoheisel enabled me to pursue my unusual topic, Hitler’s War Religion. As a result, I produced a dissertation in the sociology of religion which was the prerequisite for my sociology of religion professorship in Romania.

Karl Hoheisel (b. April 16, 1937 in Langendorf, County of Neisse, Upper Silesia; d. February 17, 2011 in Bonn)

1964 Licentiate in theology, Rome, after studies in philosophy, (Catholic) theology, and biblical and oriental languages (1964)

1971 Dr. phil., Bonn, after studies in comparative religious studies and ethnology

1965-1974: Research Associate and Assistant at the (Catholic) Anthropos Institute in St. Augustin near Bonn

1971-1974: Lecturer for comparative religious studies at the (Catholic) Philosophisch-Theologischen Hochschule St. Augustin (a philosophical and theological academy) near Bonn; work on professorial dissertation during this time

1974 Training: analysis/psychoanalysis

1974 Postdoctoral qualification in comparative religious studies, Bonn (Title of the professorial dissertation: Das antike Judentum in christlicher Sicht [Judaism in Antiquity from a Christian Point of View])

1974-1980: Work within the scope of a DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the German Research Foundation, is Germany’s largest research funding organization) research program at the University of Bonn

1980-1995: Adjunct Professor at the University of Bonn

1981-1995: Research Associate at the F. J. Dölger Institut of the University of Bonn (an institute for the research of late antiquity), above all as editor and author of the Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (an encyclopedia of antiquity and Christianity)

Since 1988: Deputy Director of F. J. Dölger Institute

1995-2000: Professor for comparative religious studies, University of Bonn, most recently Director of the Religionswissenschaftlichen Institut (a comparative religious studies institute) as the successor of Hans-Joachim Klimkeit

2000-2007 Emeritus ibid.

Areas of Research:

The history of Judaism, of early and modern Islam, and of all religions of classical antiquity

The history of religion in modern Europe, in particular new religions and modern religious movements such as Freemasonry, New Age, occultism

Psychology of religion

Geography of religion

Editor of book series:

Geographia religionum since 1985

Studies in Oriental Religions since 1999

Editor of encyclopedias:

Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (an encyclopedia of antiquity and Christianity) since 1996

Special editor in the history of religion:

Theologischen Realenzyklopädie (TRE, a theological encyclopedia) since 2000

List of publications & commemorative publications:

Literature up to 2002 in a commemorative publication, pp. IX-XIX

Manfred Hutter, Wassilios Klein, Ulrich Vollmer (eds.). Hairesis: Festschrift für Karl Hoheisel zum 65. Geburtstag. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Ergänzungsband 34. Münster: Aschendorff, 2002

Here is my 2005 text:

Christianity came to Bonn as it did to Cologne, not via missionaries but rather via the Roman army. Legions had been strewn throughout the Roman Empire and with them the many Christians who were among the officers and soldiers. The New Testament provides reports of this situation. Against the will of their supreme commanders, these individuals conveyed the Christian faith through personal contacts. It has been verified that the first Christians were in Trier and Cologne as of 200 A.D., and in Bonn it is likely to have been similar. To this day, Christian Roman tombstones on the streets of Bonn’s Roman quarters are witnesses to this. In any event, there were officers and soldiers of the Theban Legion who were killed during the persecution of Christians in all three Roman colonies in 291 A.D. This legion came from Egypt, where many Christians lived. Among the leaders of the legion were the later patron saints of Bonn, Cassius and Florentius, whose heads have been sculpted by a Turkish artist and are featured in large format in front of the Bonn Basilica. According to what is probably a legend, both officers were executed at the location of the ‘death chapel’ (Mordkapelle). Outside of the Roman settlement in the cemetary at their grave, there soon arose a space for worship services. Along with the toleration of Christianity issued by the emperor in 313 A.D., this location was expanded after 320 A.D. to become the oldest Christian church known to us in Bonn. In 1928 the cella memoria was dug up under the Bonn Basilica. Today it is kept in the cellars of the Rhine State Museum (Rheinische Landesmuseum). This expansion is supposed to have occurred through Helena, the Emporor Constantine’s mother, which, however, cannot be documented. In 600 A.D. it became a single nave church and as of 1050 A.D. the current day basilica. Since the 4^th century the history of the city has been closely tied to the history of Christianity. Old churches and chapels are witness to this fact. Many residents of Bonn are oblivious to this fact, and thus it invites individuals to a stroll in the city. For instance the foundations of the oldest parish church, built in 750 A.D., the ‘people’s church’ (Dietkirche), can be found in the old Roman camp (Drusus Street, or Drususstraße). In the grass next to the model of the Roman camp and between residential housing, these foundations are visible again today. Or there is the medieval Helena Chapel (Helenakapelle) from the 12^th century (located at Am Hof 32/34), which hardly any resident of Bonn has ever seen. In the offset of the Old Cemetary (der Alte Friedhof), there is a late Roman in commendam church (Kirche der Deutschordenskommende). The German imperial chancellor and archbishop had a double church built in the Schwarz-Rheindorf section of Bonn for the imperial court from 1149-1151, which is an insider tip for lovers of art.

If the concept of fundamentalism is to have anything to do with the word ‘fundament,’ one has to ask every school of thought what they understand to be their primary fundament and not to impose the concept found in one religious movement on all others.

If one strictly goes by whether the Scriptures are considered to be infallible, then all Muslims would be fundamentalists – (whereby one gladly block out that the written records of Mohammed’s sayings and his associates, the hadith, are likewise taken to be infallible and for instance are of great importance for the sharia). Perhaps the most important western historian of Islam, Bernard Lewis, calls the application of the term fundamentalism to Islam unfortunate and misleading, since it was originally used with respect to Christianity. Use of the Protestant concept cannot be applied to Islam since the belief in the divine origin of the Koran is one of the foundations of the religion. For that reason every Muslims, insofar as the meaning of the word is concerned, would be a fundamentalist.

Under this scheme no Catholics would be fundamentalists, save those who reject the historico-critical method in contrast to the guidelines given in Rome, or save those lay people whose readings associated with the Bible are often undistinguishable from Evangelical standards.

In Judaism all Orthodox and Ultraorthodox Jews would be fundamentalists, since they either take the entire Torah or at least the commandments in the Torah to have been given directly by God to Moses. Alternatively they could all be seen as non-fundamentalist, since they take the rest of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, and interpret it very freely and with much variation.

Practically all separate groups arising out of Christianity, such as the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but also all such novel eastern religions in which the founder left behind seminal writings, would be completely fundamentalist.

Religions such as Bahai, which accept the writings of multiple world religions, would be harder to classify.

All eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism as well as all nature religions would be unassailable. This is due to the fact that they either have no writings or have a large collection of writings at their disposal, with no single writing standing out as particularly ‘canonical.’ If, however, a movement chooses a certain writing and holds it to be divine and inarguable, as is the case for instance in neo-Hinduism or in Sri Lanka’s Buddhism, then they are automatically fundamentalist. Among revered writings are the Bhagavad Gita in Hinduism, the Sutta Pitaka in Buddhism, the Avesta in Parsism, and the Adi Granth in Sikhism. Within all of these religions there are movements which give these writings canonical position similar to the Bible or the Koran.

In short: If ‘fundamentalism’ is to have something to do with the word from which it originates, ‘fundament,’ this cannot be done by basing it on the question as to whether a religion uses the concept of canonical writings and whether such is held to be infallible. Instead, the question has to be asked about what the inviolable element is that justifies everything else. Then comes the question of whether this is used as a justification for violence against those who think differently, for political activities, or whether it is otherwise used in a fundamentalist manner.

Example: Political Hinduism, which seeks to make India into a purely Hindu state and does not refrain from either strict legal steps or violence against Muslims and Christians, is surely one of the newer ‘fundamentalist’ movements with grave consequences. One has to note, however: To which degree can an individual speak about a ‘fundament’ or a reversion to some sort of writings or truths in this connection? Hinduism is certainly not a uniform religion but rather an assessable diversity of traditions, divinities, and points of view that does not possess anything that would approach a common dogma. Furthermore there is no religious leader or an organized church. Its idea pluralism always integrates other religions. In spite of that, it can wrest maintenance of old Indian order, above all the caste system and religious practice, independent of its own justification. Furthermore, it decries the religiously neutral state as well as religious freedom. “At this point one has to allude to a distinct difference to Islamic or Christian fundamentalism. In Hinduism we are confronted with a form that does not place a certain interpretation of dogma above all others and then declares these other interpretations to be wrong and invalid. Rather, it is one that holds religious practice to be unalterable. Hindu fundamentalism is based on the belief in the immutability of an all-determining dharma and a societal form that is tied to that, the caste system and the cultic differentiation between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean.’ Even Hindu fundamentalists have little difficulty with the universalistic and basic concept of their religion. They interpret Allah, God, Ahura Mazda, etc. as manifestations of reality that are unable to be articulated. Every change in the existing system of order is a violation of the divine order, which receives negative sanctions or even has to be prevented at the outset. Hindu fundamentalism is for that reason a fundamentalism of orthopraxis and not one of orthodoxy.” (Katharina Ceming. “Hinduismus“. http://them.polylog.org/5/ack-de.htm).

Example: Buddhism: Buddhist theologians use the Mahavamsa writings to justify the exercise of force to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka, which in actuality are not canonical texts but rather central writings which substantiate the inseparable connection between religion and the state. One could almost come to the conclusion that the role of these writings first gained untypical significance through their political use.

Example: In the Compact Series volume Koran and Bible, I compared the understandings of scripture found in Islam and Christianity, which could not be more different. If one only asks if God’s word exists, then one overlooks the profound differences that the formulation ‘God’s word’ has already had in each of these two religions for hundreds of years. At this point the term fundamentalism resembles the view when looking through a pair of glasses that give a blurry picture, and as such it is something that distracts from a true appraisal of the basics of a religion.

Among Christian denominations, fundamentalism should not simply be attached to the manner in which the Scriptures are dealt with. Rather, it should be tied to what acts as the final authority, for instance the papal teaching authority in the Catholic Church.

Gottfried Posch aggressively assails Evangelical groups, because they would seem to allow for an infallible basis. Regarding the Catholic Church, however, he says that due to the papal office (which does not let itself be outdone by zealots), an “underlying Catholic fundamentalism . . . according to its self-image, is conceptually excluded” and can only exist in splinter groups. Here one can again see: It is always the others who are fundamentalists, for which reason he is unable to take off his Catholic glasses. It has little to do with academic propriety. And that the infallible pope is the guarantee against a set of fallible Scriptures, which after all are interpreted and discussed by millions of fallible Protestants, is sociologically incomprehensible.

Karl Lehmann thinks that ‘Scripture fundamentalism’ in Catholicism is not very widespread. How could it be? That was precisely the reason why Protestants broke away and why the Catholic Church condemned Protestants. In the Catholic Church what counts is not the Scriptures as they are interpreted by every individual, but rather the papal teaching office and its interpretation of Scripture and tradition.

Wolfgang Beinert maintains that Catholic fundamentalism is in itself an utter contradiction. Fundamentalism is structurally heretical. This may be the expression of faith of a Catholic, but it is surely not a fair comparison from a religious studies point of view.

The Evangelical understanding of Scripture has led to an unbelievable diversity of opinions and groups, and among them are fundamentalist opinions and groups. In contrast, the Catholic view of the teaching office makes such a lay theological democracy impossible. For example, the Evangelical world discusses in a broadly exegetical and ethical manner how divorce and remarriage are to be assessed, and in the meantime has predominantly offered room to both in theology and the everyday life of the church. With respect to the Catholic renunciation of both of these issues, there is nothing to change as long as the papal teaching office does not undertake to do so.

What we are dealing with here is not a retrieval of Evangelicals’ honor (how does a person want to evaluate half a billion people?) or a cheap criticism of Catholics (the same applies to another half a billion people), but rather to show that the concept of fundamentalism can easily lead to a premature contortion of reality and covers up just how everyday theology and faith really look.

Confessional Foundations of Christianity that can be used in a fundamentalist manner

• Traditional Protestantism: The Bible and confessional writings
• Evangelical Protestantism: The Bible (and Experience?)
• Pentecostal Protestantism: The Bible and direct divine inspiration (primarily to leaders)
• Liberal Protestantism: The results of theologians working in academia
• Catholicism: The papal teaching office of the pope, which interprets the Bible and tradition
• Schismatic Catholicism: The teaching office of the pope in written documents prior to 1962
• Orthodoxy: The tradition found in the early centuries of Christianity as it interpreted the Bible
• Separate groups, e.g., Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons: the Bible and the writings of group founders

The opposite also applies: Not everyone who dogmatically holds to the infallibility of some sort of founding authority is for that reason a fundamentalist and guaranteed to be unprepared to find democratic solutions through discourse with others.

It is often the case that a ‘fundamentalist understanding of Scripture’ is in itself seen as a “danger.” I consider that to be nonsense. The question of what justifies that viewpoint always has to be posed. There are pacifistic, completely apolitical groups who interpret the Bible literally. A person can theologically hold their attitude towards Scripture to be wrong, and yet they are politically and socially completely innocuous. Still, they are wrongly warded off together with terrorists with the use of a fundamentalist cudgel.

In addition to that, a person still has to ask what ‘infallible’ means in practice. For instance the Evangelical world traditionally holds the Bible to be infallible, and yet at the same time via hundreds of universities, thousands of researching and publishing biblical scholars, professional journals on the Old and New Testaments, and dozens of series of commentaries, there is a global and well organized continuous discussion about how the biblical texts are actually to be understood and applied. With this there is not a single question that is left untouched in the discussion. For instance the question of the ordination of women is an issue that is running rampant in the Evangelical movement, and it is being conducted with exegetical justification.

Example: USA: Naturally it is not understandable to a European to hear that 50% of Americans state that the Bible is God’s word that has to be literally interpreted, that is to say, a number which goes far beyond the number of Evangelicals there. Among these Americans, there are those who derive a justification of capital punishment from the Bible, and there are those against capital punishment who call upon the Bible as inerrant. There are those who directly find democracy in the Bible, and there are those who think that the Bible enjoins all political activity. In earlier times there were some southerners who found slavery in the Bible, and their opponents called even more vehemently upon the Bible.

Example: The Jehovah’s Witnesses have perhaps the most literal and most radical understanding of the Bible, since there has not yet even been a discussion regarding interpretation. I consider them as completely fallacious, and from top to bottom I do not share their leadership style. I consider their style of mission to be offensive, and I know the psychological problems of individuals who have dropped out. Yet dangerous to society? Where have Jehovah’s Witnesses ever conducted attacks or just even made political demands? At this point, when compared to the old sect concept –which had appeared to be largely overcome – a much worse verbal cudgel was taken out of the bag: fundamentalism.

Example from the USA: It is, of course, not fathomable for Europeans when 50% of Americans indicate that the Bible is God’s word that has to be literally interpreted. That is a number that far exceeds the number of Evangelicals. Among these Americans are individuals who derive capital punishment from the Bible and those who without fail call upon the Bible in opposition to capital punishment There are those who find democracy directly in the Bible and those who think that the Bible disallows all political activity. It used to be that some Southerners found slavery in the Bible while their opponents all the more fervently referred to the Bible.

For the first time in its 50-year history, the World Congress on the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy included homeschooling on the agenda of its biannual global conference. Held in Frankfurt, Germany at Goethe University August 15–20, the congress attracted nearly 1,000 academics and legal practitioners. Experts in human rights gave papers at a special workshop, organized by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, noted Christian apologist and distinguished professor of philosophy and Christian thought at Patrick Henry College. The workshop included presentations by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, a German theologian and director of the International Institute for Religious Freedom, and by Michael Donnelly, attorney and director for international affairs at the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

In his paper, “The Justification of Home Schooling vis-a-vis the European Human Rights System,” Montgomery said that homeschooling should be tolerated in every country.

“The right of parents a priori to the state to make decisions about how and where their children are educated is a natural right and one that is founded on the basis of holy Scripture. While some governments may choose to regulate or oversee parents who choose this form of education, all governments should tolerate if not encourage it. That is why I thought it should be covered at this conference. I’m glad the organizers agreed with me.”

Missed Opportunity

Montgomery argued that the European Court of Human Rights has missed important opportunities to correctly apply human rights law to the conflict over homeschooling, instead deferring to current societal prejudices and predilections in favor of secular and statist presumptions. He wrote:

“At the deepest level culturally, increasing secularism in modern society— particularly as manifested in Europe—poses special difficulties. The secular mindset can (as in the Konrad opinion) lead courts to an unconscious acceptance of politically correct notions of educational ‘integration.’ Sadly, this also means that where constitutions and international human rights instruments are silent on an issue, the law will not appeal, as in the past, to the ‘higher law’ as set out in the holy Scriptures—the inalienable dignity of the human person, his family, and his personal decision-making, as John Locke derived these rights principally from biblical revelation—but will tend to defer to state power and bureaucracy, infused by prevailing pluralistic viewpoints. Where this occurs, the tragic result will be, not an increase in human rights protections but just the opposite. In that respect, the home schooling issue may serve as a litmus test to discerning jurists.”

Schirrmacher, also a professor of sociology, presented “Compulsory Education in Schools only? Divergent Developments in Germany.” He noted that homeschooling is virtually impossible in Germany because of an aggressive attempt by “legal and sociological machinery” to repress the practice while ignoring regular and rampant truancy among public school children. Schirrmacher argued that the country’s federal child protection law that allows the Jugendamt, Germany’s child protection service, to take custody of children is being misused when applied to homeschoolers. “Parents,” he argues, “who want something different, are not to be placed on the same level as parents who are violent and let their children get into a bad state and who should be punished.”

National Socialism Influence Continues

Schirrmacher points out that compulsory education through school attendance has a long history in Germany, but that the criminalization of homeschooling is a recent issue originating with the rise of national socialism. He wrote:

“Princes wanted all subjects to be good citizens and youth to be raised to be good soldiers. For the first time, as far as I can see, the principle of compulsory education is expressed in the Weimar School Regulations of 1919. Even though educational instruction at home was nevertheless able to have a niche existence, it is still the case that compulsory education as it developed did not serve the august democratic goals of equality and equal opportunity. Rather, it was a central and controlling element with which the state educated the population in accordance with its principles. . . national socialism made use of the fact that in any case all children had to learn according to the manner the state prescribed, and thus it merely eliminated free alternatives in private and alternative schools as well as in home educational instruction.”

Schirrmacher was highly critical of the Germany’s use of criminal law to prosecute homeschooling parents.

“Modern democratic Germany should not use criminal law against parents who homeschool. There is no doubt that the current enforcement approach of jail, high fines and taking children from parents over education began with the national socialists.”

Seeking Asylum

HSLDA has reported on numerous cases where the German government persecutes homeschooling parents. That is why HSLDA brought the first-ever homeschool asylum case in 2008 for the Romeike family from Germany. The Romeikes were granted asylum in January, 2010 by immigration Judge Lawrence Burman, but the Obama administration has appealed the Romeikes’ victory. As of August 2011, the family was still waiting for a determination of the appeal.

Donnelly, who is also an adjunct professor of government at Patrick Henry College, presented “Creature of the State? Homeschooling, the Law, Human Rights, and Parental Autonomy.” He argued that homeschooling is a human right of the first order and that pluralism as practiced in most Western societies demands its acceptance. He disagreed with those, like Emory Law Professor and noted child rights advocate Martha Albertson-Fineman, who argued that homeschooling is a problem in a democracy that should “require compulsory public education because only the government can assure the inculcation of values able to ensure the survival of a democratic society.”

“Nonsense,” says Donnelly. “Those who make this argument conflate ‘society’ with ‘state.’ State and society are not necessarily—in fact are not usually—synonymous. Indeed, a government’s interest in expanding its power may very well be at odds with the people’s interest in freedom.”

For over a century, compulsory public education has been a “standard” in most developed societies. But as homeschooling is on the rise internationally, much of the same drama American homeschoolers experienced for decades is repeating itself. Parents in some of these countries, including former communist nations hostile to any threat to state supremacy, are fighting hard to secure the freedom to teach their own children. HSLDA is helping by offering research and advocacy to public policy makers and encouragement to homeschoolers in other countries. In Germany, however, it looks like it will be a longer road than other countries. State and federal legislators in the republic told Donnelly that most German policy makers are unwilling to credit research gained from America’s 40 years of experience with homeschooling and remain fearful that an American approach to homeschooling will create parallel societies.

Donnelly recounted: “One state legislator was quite short when she asked the host of a meeting I attended, ‘Why is this American here? This is Germany—we’re not like America.’ During the discussion about homeschooling the legislator told a homeschooling mom present that ‘there was no way she could possibly have enough time to properly educate or properly socialize her eight children.’ ”

Religious Views

Germany, like much of Europe, views religion differently than the United States. Unlike here, religion is taught in public schools. Germany’s growing Muslim minority, however, resulting from the influx of Turkish immigrants since the 1960s, invokes fear on the part of “ethnic Germans.” One federal legislator who supports homeschooling in concept agreed that this was a concern on the part of many public policy makers. This phenomenon helps explain the German Constitutional Court’s 2003 Konrad holding that the “interest of society in stamping out parallel societies” is justified so that “minority groups can be integrated,” taught “democratic values” and how to live tolerantly with others. Such prescriptions, however, clash with human rights acknowledged by Germany in writing.

Educational freedom is a foundational right explicitly recognized since 1925 by the United States Supreme Court inPierce v. Society of Sisters. The fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children has also been incorporated in other documents including the 1945 UN Declaration on Human Rights, the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although sovereign nations need to address human rights and freedom issues within the context of their culture and law, organizations like HSLDA that seek to influence public policy both domestically and internationally are needed to speak for the good of all homeschoolers and similarly situated groups. Conferences like IVR 2011 are a place where ideas and information can be shared to ultimately seek to influence public policy.

“Homeschooling is a growing international movement. More parents are finding homeschooling as an alternative to failing public school systems,” said Donnelly. “Governments need to understand that homeschooling produces academically superior, socially well-adjusted and productive citizens.”

Conferences like IVR 2011 get the facts into the hands of academics who can then bring that information back to their countries and use it to inform policy makers so that decisions can be made—hopefully for the good of homeschooling parents. HSLDA has been advancing the cause of homeschooling since 1983 and hopes to help homeschoolers abroad by investing resources to fight these stereotypes in countries like Germany.

American homeschoolers are blessed with great freedom. It is important that we support the less fortunate who are restricted by government policy from teaching their children at home. Because technology allows ideas to travel at the speed of light, it serves the interest of all freedom-loving people to resist totalitarianism in education wherever and whenever necessary.

The papers presented by Donnelly, Montgomery and Schirrmacher will be published by a German publishing company and will be available in the coming months at the HSLDA bookstore.

Download Abstract book of 25th IVR World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy.