The professor emeritus of medicine from the University of Hawaii and head of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, Milton Diamond, together with two Czech researchers Eva Jozifkova and Petr Weiss, maintains in an article “Pornography and Sex Crime in the Czech Republic“ in the online edition of the prestigious professional journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published by Springer and dated November 30, 2010 (location: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21116701 and location: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v046j3g178147772/; location of summary: Springer. „Legalizing pornography: Lower sex crime rates? Study carried out in Czech Republic shows results similar to those in Japan and Denmark.“ ScienceDaily 30 November 2010. 10 February 2011 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm) that the number of cases of child molestation in the Czech Republic has dropped with the acceptance of child pornography. For this reason child pornography should be legalized. Given the steep and controversial demand, the article is astonishingly superficial, and a broad international discussion is simply skated over. I have four points to criticize:

1. The statistical basis is very unreliable. If one considers that Diamond builds the idea of the legal acceptance of child pornography upon it, it is astonishing that for all practical purposes he does not discuss the unreliability and indeed the incomparability of the statistical basis. Can one really assume that recording all the cases of child molestation in the decades of communism, in the time after reunification, and today has taken place in a similar and reliable fashion? And that such is the case when it comes to an offence where the estimated number of unrecorded cases is very high and fluctuates widely? Yet if one wants to know how the data was compiled and controlled, and whether it is comparable, the only thing one reads is the following: “Data on the number of crimes reported were obtained from the Ministry of Interior.“ This excludes any possibility of scientific review.

2. Can a person actually produce a linear connection between the legalization of child pornography and a reduction in the number of recorded cases of child molestation, in particular when within the long term reduction there are fluctuations, with even a peak in 1995ff that lies above the number for the time prior to 1989? It is actually too simplistic if one looks at the basic political transformation the Czech Republic experienced, how complex modern societies are, and how difficult it is to receive reliable numbers in areas such as child molestation where the estimated number of unrecorded cases is high. However, Diamond does not even discuss other explanatory approaches or try to align other factors or subtract out what is an unacceptable method of sociological research. Diamond also indicates that the number of cases of child molestation first climbed from 1989 to 1995, and then fell from 1998 onwards. He does not provide an explanation as to why the legalization of child pornography first of all led to a decade of increase in child molestation and only thereafter to a decline.

3. Even if there were to be a connection between the acceptance of child pornography and the frequency of child molestation: The logic that one legalizes an evil because it helps to reduce another evil is very dangerous. Should we allow women to be beaten, in case it would demonstrably reduce the number of murdered women?

4. The viewpoint that child pornography is harmless and should be allowed, indeed even promoted, if its acceptance reduces the frequency of child molestation, breaks down with the fact that the production of child pornography is almost always associated with the molestation of children and all too often with child trafficking (and trafficking in women). This begins with parents who sell their children for temporary use and goes all the way to organized criminal rings and networks across all continents. It appears  that the author does not know this or consciously omits it, although there is broad international discourse on this topic.

How naïvely Diamond argues is demonstrated in his conclusion: “We do not approve of the use of real children in the production of child pornography but artificially produced materials might serve.“

How can one speak in such a way that plays down the situation? And what does such nonsense have to do with science? And what does “artificially produced material mean? In adult pornography there is a large amount that is retouched, but genuine pictures and recordings as a point of departure are much cheaper than virtual productions. Whoever deals with the topics of child trafficking and sex tourism knows that enslaved children are available so cheaply that a high tech graphic artist would never be affordable.

5. Diamond is very biased over against colleagues who believe differently. At the very beginning of his article, he indeed finds a place to disparage other researchers who publish articles critical of the relationship between the use of pornography and sexual offenses (“extremists”) and to negatively label people who consider Playboy to be pornography (which has nothing to do with his topic). However, there is no place for a word against child molestation per se, or against child trafficking, child prostitution, child sex tourism, or other offences. In my opinion, this alone demonstrates how biased Diamond is – academically as well as ethically – and that in the end he has only found what he always considered correct.

In the referendum held on November 4, 2008 52.2% voted against homosexual marriage, and 47.8 % voted for it. The level of voter participation was an astounding 79.4% of the 17.3 million registered voters in the State of California. The 52% consisted of Catholics (above all Latinos), Mormons, Evangelicals, but also non-religious voters.

On the day of the court decision, Gallup conducted a survey of a representative population of the USA. 57% voiced opposition to homosexual marriage. Since 2004 this number has fluctuated between 53% and 59%. In 1996 this number was still at the higher level of 68%. The number of supporters went from 47% in 2007 to 40% in 2009. In 1996 this number stood at 27%.

Apart from the presidential election this was the most expensive campaign that has ever taken place in the USA. The supporters of the constitutional amendment that defines a marriage to be something only between a man and a woman took in 28.84€ million in contributions. The oppon22.7€ents had even more, namely million in contributions. That the American presidential candidate John McCain and other leading Republicans spoke out in favor of the constitutional amendment is hardly astonishing. However, that Barack Obama did not speak out in favor of homosexual marriage is astonishing. Obama does not derive the conclusion that homosexuals should also be able to enter into marriage from his support of a homosexual life style.

Occasionally Evangelicals are made responsible for the rejection of homosexual marriage. But here is some interesting information: The major supporters of the constitutional amendment were the California Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the Mormons, the Orthodox churches, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the Republicans. The Evangelical element played a subordinate role. Many Evangelical pastors spoke out in favor of the amendment, but by far not all of them.

On the other side there were above all Anglican Bishops (the Episcopal Church), the Rabbis of California and other Jewish groups, the California Council of Churches, and the Unitarians. Additionally, all the large daily newspapers in California spoke out in favor of homosexual marriage, demonstrating an imbalance as well as the fact that the media can often represent less than one-half of the population and that the population can be amazingly resistant to the cumulative pressure of the media. Against the theory of an Evangelical coup is the following fact: 70% of Afro-Americans voted for the constitutional amendment, among them surely Evangelicals but not the right wing conservative Evangelicals who are normally meant. 53% of Latinos voted for the amendment. Among Protestants, 65% voted for the amendment – this number could never only be made up of Evangelicals – and 64% of Catholics. 56% of all union members voted for the amendment, whereby Evangelicals are also restrained when it comes to unions. By the way, 2% of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals voted for the amendment and against homosexual marriage. Even so, among opponents of George Bush, 40% of them voted for the amendment.

An additional comment: The threats and smearing against proponents of the constitutional amendment bear witness to problems with democracy. That the contributor’s list was used in order to find out who was in favor of the amendment and then to denounce and threaten them is also reprehensible. That the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival and the art director of the California Musical Theater had to resign because they made contributions shows that democratic decisions are not respected.

All numbers and sources are found in the exemplary Wikipedia entry.

If this had to do with some other topic beside Abortion, it would be a scandal of the first order. European media would confront the USA on its underlying racism, Anti-discrimination programs would be called for and the topic would be discussed daily. Since, however, a broad reactivation of the abortion discussion is not desired, the fortune of the black population is also not discussed.

Something similar also applies to gender selection procedures which happen a million times over and where boys are more significantly valued than girls, for instance in China, India, and the Islamic world. Indeed this is happening increasingly around the world. Just most recently The Swedish National Institute of Public Health officials have decided that abortion on the basis of gender may not be denied. There is the case of a mother who had two daughters and had already aborted two additional girls. She wanted to abort the third girl, since she at that point only wanted to have a boy. If this case did not have to do with abortion, it would be a scandal of the first order, and women’s representatives from around the world would protest.

Increasingly happiness, affluence, and self actualization are the values which hold our society together, while more and more, with respect to other values, a consensus is missing. When everything is subject to a cost-benefit analysis, it is no surprise that this also applies to pregnancy and children. The domination of economic and materialistic concerns in our culture strikes through to the weakest in our culture.

Opponents to abortion start by simply assuming the position of the unborn individual. Everything else follows on its own. Their position is completely easy to describe – all other things are logical consequences: when human procreation takes place, a new biological, intectual and spiritual being occurs, a person with unmistakable dignity. Later on there is no break in development at which point something even close to this in meaning becomes apparent and where out of a non-person a person emerges.

The protection of human life is without a doubt the central and most important task of the state, and it serves as a basis for duties as well as rights. From this the German Supreme Court concluded in 1993 that the state can never actively pursue the ending of human life – also that of the unborn – nor can it hold that it is fit to end human life.

While compared to the history of bygone centuries things in democratic countries look very good with respect to protection of the individual during life, these same countries almost completely fail when it comes to the phase prior to birth (and increasingly also at the end of life) and in so doing deny to the weakest in society protection from other people who want to kill them. In our opinion this shakes the very foundations of the state. Furthermore, by habituation it leads to a situation where generally the protection of life becomes more and more one issue among many that by all means can be subordinated to other considerations.

If we have again come so far that the state thinks that it can vote on the right to life for entire parts of the population, then the state has lost its most important justification for existence, namely that of protecting the life of its citizens from other people. At the same time that a species protection act for plants and animals was signed, the German Bundestag decided that one may kill the human ‘species’ in the womb.

The most frequent Cause of Death worldwide

Abortion is the most frequent cause of death on the planet. According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2007 there were 136 million births and 54 million deaths over against 42 million reported abortions. Of the 54 million 17.5 million died of cardiovascular disease and 11 million people died from cancer. Fewer than one-fifth of the 54 million were children. Thus almost four times as many children who are killed in the womb than die as born children.

In a report by the research institute World Watch published in Washington, it follows that annually almost as many children are aborted as people died in World War II. While in World War II 55 to 60 million people died, annually at least 50 million children are killed in the womb, whereby additionally 200,000 women also die.

In Japan and France one half of all children are killed in the womb. In Germany and the Netherlands that percentage is one quarter.

However, if one looks at the German media, one could get the impression that statistically we are dealing with is a side issue and a moral bagatelle.

However, when I read the commentaries and blog discussions under these headings, I shudder. Next to the many subject-specific articles or good-natured use of freedom of expression, I find the most disgusting gutter language, hateful language, abusive language and verbal slugfests. The mist of anonymity appears to allow everything that language can produce. People judge others, about whom only the last commentary on a blog is known, and they come to the conclusion that others are empty-headed, incorrigible, egoistic, or dangerous.

While one anti-discrimination law follows another, the result is that a more respectful – much less more loving – behavior towards others is nowhere to be found. Discrimination appears to be gaining momentum on web discussion boards. In theory, the netiquette for many blogs and media say something else, but in reality bloggers give the evil in their heart free reign.

When a pastor or bishop preaches about the Ten Commandments and holds up a ‘mirror of confession’ in front of people (and in particular when he does not choose words that display respect for human dignity as he certainly has learned), the press jumps all over him. However, measured against the language used in commentaries and blogs, in particular those which are associated with the press media, everything that the pastor or bishop can possibly have said is a friendly piece of advice.

Hundreds of thousands of writers of commentaries do not use the new technological avenues to promote discussion in democratic society and to enable (almost) everyone the opportunity to participate in public discourse. Rather, it enables verbally lashing out at everyone who has a different opinion. Side questions in which one truly can believe one thing or the other become the cause for denying someone their personhood. and in the friendliest case a reason for calling on them to go ahead and emigrate – a well-known form of request in discussion pages and blogs.

Is that democracy, where every person can insult everyone else at will? As time goes by, will the hatred that is shown towards those who think different politically stay in the web, or will it at some point influence the actual daily interaction people have with each other? Can those who watch over the virtues of our country, who are paying attention to political correctness everywhere, but who themselves dish out evil on web discussion pages and blogs fail to address this hatred?

Jesus said in Matthew 24:12: “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold . . . “ On the internet we are increasingly experiencing how people allow their thoughts free reign, and the absence of law and prohibition is leading to boundless lovelessness which one day could spill over into our democracy. Democracy as a freedom of expression is bid welcome. However, democracy, when it is principally lacking in respect and takes away others’ dignity, is not a political structure that is worthy of human dignity. It is precisely the democratically elected politicians who are role models for hate bloggers and slanderers in the way they speak about each other.

The frequent warnings in the Bible against slander and rumors are indeed age-old, but at the same time they are more up to date than ever. People could by all means simultaneously be committed to the truth and make themselves controversial by being on a search for it, and at the same time through love get along respectfully with each other. See in this connection my essay “Putting Rumors to rest”, chapter 5 in my book “May Christians Go To Court” (Download under iirf.eu).

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Particular Role Models in the Faith and their Misdeeds, etc., prior to their Conversion to Faith in God or to their Calling

Particular Role Models in the Faith and their Crimes, etc., prior to their Conversion to Faith in God or to their Calling

Wrongdoings of other Members of God’s People, who are not necessarily to be considered Role Models

What applies to severe sin in 1 Corinthians prior to conversion to faith in God even applies to severe sins which are committed by Christians. The best examples are the Christians in Corinth. They lived in incest (1 Corinthians 5:1-2) and prompted Paul, among other things, to write the first letter to the Corinthians so that they would be excluded and the second letter to the Corinthians so that they would be received again after repenting (2 Corinthians 2:5-11)! Paul confronts the church, which had just finally managed to draw conclusions and exclude the concerned individuals, with what had come to their mind, namely not to immediately accept those whom God has forgiven back into the church. Paul justifies the ‘forgiveness’ (verses 9-10) as follows: “I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. . . . in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes“ (verses 8, 11)!

Do people in our churches have similar backgrounds about which they can speak openly, either from before the time they became Christians or since they have been Christians? Or is something still hanging on there? Are we not often stricter than God, who has long since forgiven them?

There are a lot of women who are active in the right to life movement who in the past had an abortion. Now, after having received God’s forgiveness, they willingly help others and indeed warn others. They perform an important and ‘effective’ service. And yet many report that they do not receive support from their churches at all and rather that listeners are uncomfortably affected when they hear about their pasts.

Several theses underscore this:

1. Forgiveness is what defines the essence of Jesus‘ church. Even as forgiveness presupposes change of mind and deed, we have to forgive as Christ himself forgives. For this very reason the Lord’s Supper is a permanent mark of Jesus’ church.
2. The Church is a home for the homeless, since many people who experience fundamental changes in their lives lose their old home forever and often find a new one in Jesus‘ church. When Paul became a Christian, he lost all his old friends but unfortunately had trouble finding a new home in the church. This is due to the fact that many doubted this sudden change in Paul.
3. The special thing about the Christian faith is that an admission of guilt and forgiveness belong together. The admission of guilt does not lead to condemnation but rather to forgiveness. However, there is no forgiveness for concealing, trivializing, making excuses, blameshifting or sweeping things under the carpet, but rather for accepting responsibility and admitting one’s guilt. Forgiveness without confession is a cheap brushing aside, while confession without forgiveness is self-mutilation.
4. Self-criticism belongs to the essence of being a Christian. Christians are not better but they have it better. According to Luther, being a Christian means one beggar telling another beggar where there is something to eat. For this reason Christians do not gloss over their pasts before and after they convert to Christianity. Rather, they point out that they are only what they are through the grace of God. For instance, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:9-10: ´”For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

No religion knows self-criticism like Old Testament Judaism and New Testament Christianity. It does not matter whether this has always shaped its history or not. The errors of their most important leaders have been laid bare and all too often God has called upon outsiders to bring his people back to their senses. “In contrast to the Holy Scriptures of Mohammed, the Hebrew Bible is not a book but rather a library. It is a colorful tapestry of accounts which an entire people wove together over millennia. No misdeed on the part of the children of Israel is left out of this incomparable convolution. No wrongdoing by its greatest king is concealed. Paul Badde comments that “up to the New Testament one can look at each book of the Bible as an objection, contradiction or a critical commentary of its own earlier history.’ The result of this historical frankness is that since that time self-criticism in the Judeo-Christian world has counted as a virtue: it is a sign of strength and not an admission of weakness. In Islam it is different: a critique of one’s own history? Unthinkable, a blasphemy! It would pull the foundation out from under revelation. It would be an insult to the prophet. Therefore, it is the case that up until today in countries shaped by Islam there is neither freedom of speech nor debate in freely elected parliaments“ (the Jewish author Hannes Stein). There is no religion where the adherents of their own religion come away so badly as in the Old and New Testaments. The teaching that Jews and Christians are sinners and are capable of the worst deeds is something that is shown quite plainly in the Bible. In the Old Testament it is not the pagan peoples, nor is it the Romans and Greeks in the New Testament whose atrocities and fallacious outlooks stand in the center of things. Rather, it is the alleged or actual people of God. The Bible does not dispense belief and unbelief according to races or nations. For that reason pagans and unbelieving Jews are designated with the same words in both the Old and the New Testaments. Christianity itself becomes a heinous religion if it denies the true power of God (2 Timothy 3:5: “. . . having a form of godliness but denying its power”) or places human laws and commandments in the place of divine revelation (Mark 7:1-13; Isaiah 28:13-14). The Jews are for instance criticized because in studying the Bible they overlook the essence, namely Jesus (John 5:39). They strive after God, but they do so without following him (Romans 10: 2-3) and because they call upon God and his word but actually do not live according to it (Romans 2).

Thomas Schirrmacher. Prawda o pornografii. übersetzt von I. W. Proswirjakowoj, Lek-torat W. S. Rjagusowa. Copyright: Ewangelskij aljans. Moskau: Wjatka, 2009. 224 S.

It is available in Russian internet book shops, eg:
(But as I do not know Russian, I better do not provide any links.)

• http://www.books.ru/shop/
• http://www.my-shop.ru/shop/books/510051.html
• http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/4835068/

I am in discussion with another publisher to provide an edition in Western Europa.

• The cover is here.
• The back cover is here.
• The impressum is here.

Nowadays the unborn individual is in a sense not a person who is received, but rather, and contrary to all logic, not a person until he or she is received – an unwanted child does not have a right to life.

Human rights means, however, that a person is endowed with dignity before encountering any other person or institution such as the family or the state. Every other person, and a fortiori the state, finds us imbued with dignity. No one creates it by the power of his or her office.

The prohibition against killing the innocent belongs to the essence of a constitutional state. All opponents of the death penalty in fact expect from the state that they will not even kill anyone who is guilty. But the most innocent and the most helpless, those who are in a mother’s womb, are left without any government protection when those who should actually protect them more than everyone else, the mother, father, and physician, determine their death.

At present there is one national or European anti-discrimination measure and guideline chasing the other. However, the fact that the unborn are discriminated against, or additionally the handicapped or unloved, or even worse, those because of their gender, does not concern those who say that protection against discrimination so far does not go far enough.

Every unborn child is, from the moment it is conceived, a person who has a claim on the same human rights as every member of the human community. His or her life is to be protected unconditionally, and to kill that individual is unthinkable.

As are all human rights, the human rights of embryos are also independent of others’ consciences, for instance the consciences of mothers or physicians.

Cases where an individual can still be legally killed include the situation where it is done to prevent that individual from killing (e.g., self-defense, the self-defense of the state) – something that is excluded with respect to the unborn.  Another case where an individual can be legally killed is in a grave situation where there is a collision of obligations, one in which life is pitted against life (e.g., just war, self-sacrifice for another individual), but never, however, in order to defend a lesser value.

Why the Manhattan Declaration is correct

A statement for the Institute for Ethics and Values, Giessen

Prof. Dr. phil. Dr. theol. Thomas Schirrmacher

• The original pdf of the institute in English is here, the original German version on the institutes webpage is here.
• You can read the Manhattan Delaration here.

The so-called ‘culture war’ was a dispute between the Roman Catholic Church, under Pope Pius IX, and the Kingdom of Prussia and Imperial Germany, under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, from 1871 to 1887. The intention was to drive back the public influence of the church with the aid of legislation. What was meant by the church was the Catholic Church. However, legislation touched all churches. Indeed, it even partially affects all religions in Germany up to the present day, inasmuch as regulations from that time still apply today.

In 1871 what stood at the beginning was the famous Kanzelparagraph (“Pulpit Paragraph”) which made a pastor liable for political or alleged political statements. What followed in 1872 was civil marriage – a marriage in the presence of religious officials was from that time on strictly forbidden (except as a belated celebration afterwards). Later, in 1875 there was the Brotkorbgesetz (“Breadbasket Law”), by which indirect financial support was systematically withdrawn from churches. Finally, all church schools were placed under rigorous state school supervision. In many other questions as well the churches were forced to play according to the rules of the state.

Many of the guidelines were in place for a long time or still apply today. The Kanzelparagraph was not lifted until 1953. It has only been since 2009 that a civil marriage does not have to precede a church marriage. In contrast to practically all other western countries, a religious marriage ceremony is not recognized in Germany as a legal act. And there has been no change in this situation up to the present day.

Bishops ended up in prison, and the state looked on astonishingly as a sleeping mass of nonpolitical Christians, in solidarity, suddenly became defiant. After a lot of unnecessary fuss had been caused, the State finally gave up. This State only held anyway until 1918.

Christian churches were indeed badly harmed in the culture war. At the same time, however, they in large part also experienced a revitalization – and in the end the State backed down. What happened was that the churches that were not the intended targets, especially the Evangelical churches, were affected more, while the actual goal of breaking churches’ international bonds was completely unsuccessful. The climate was poisoned for decades. Loyal citizens were forced to choose between their faith and the state, without there being anyone who actually profited from this.

There have repeatedly been similar culture wars. National Socialism was not opposed to the churches as long as they conformed to the party line in a streamlined manner and helped make soldiers good soldiers. The GDR (German Democratic Republic) wanted socialistic and controllable churches. Practically all western countries have gone through similar phases from time to time. In the USA the culture war has crept along for almost 30 years, and that has finally led to the Manhattan Declaration.
Naturally there are differences between then and now. The political power of the Catholic Church was at that time much greater. Additionally, we in the West live in established democracies.

It is therefore all the more astonishing just how many powers there are today who in peaceful societies are organizing and pursuing a new edition of the culture war, “Culture War 2.0,”over against today’s peaceful churches. Great Britain is a forerunner in this respect. Bishops in The Church of England – where ironically we are still speaking about the state religion – are paying horrendous penalties for preaching on the topic of sexuality and are being forced to attend anti-discrimination seminars. All Catholic adoption service centers have been closed, because they were being forced to also broker to same-sex couples. Furthermore, increasingly often Christians are removed from their positions of service to the state because, for instance, they wear a cross.

Abortion, bioethics, sexuality, marriage, family, gender mainstreaming – the list of topics used to try and force the church to think and act like ‘published’ opinion gets longer all the time (this is because the ‘public’ opinion of the majority of people is not always on their side, and these people are not even necessarily interested in the opinion of the majority).

Christians are called upon to no longer consider that what others do is wrong. They should put their ethics ad acta. This does not mean they are to move in favor of an absence of ethics nor in favor of a free set of ethics held at their own discretion. Rather, it is supposed to be the ethics of those who are heading up the culture war. The churches should either practice others’ ethics in the midst of those same people, or otherwise be completely pushed out of public life.

For instance, this becomes clear when looking at the subject of religious education. The city of Berlin portrays the situation as if it does not have to do with getting rid of religious education. Rather, it is a question of enforcing the compulsory attendance of all children in state worldview ‘ethics’ instruction. In school life the constitutional right of parents to have their children educated in line with their religion has not played a role for a long time. And there is an unbroken trend that expects Christians, just like everyone else, to see to it that they place their children in state or state-financed nurseries from very early age. Along these same lines, everyone who takes care of his child at home is suspected of being asocial.

Surely history does not repeat itself; however, one can learn from it. The parallels are striking: in the Western world the means of persecuting Christians and the means of religious oppression are law and legislation, which are the same means then as now. New screws are repeatedly turned, whereby the state seeks to force Christians into certain behavior without having to utilize open force. It certainly has been force, but due to the fact that it has been state force, it appears legitimate.
The dispute in Germany, in Europe, and indeed in the entire Western world is about as useful as a hole in the head. It is not the churches in Germany or Europe who are guilty of social strife or from which discrimination and violence towards others originate.

The European Union stands before enormous tasks. Still, instead of fighting unemployment and racism, legislation goes grazing where churches as religious groups have alleged special rights. Religious freedom, no thank you!? Churches’ rights to self-determination according to §140 of the German Constitution, but how? Every church should see to it that they submit to the direct grasp of the state the same way every company does. A creditor with qualms of conscience? They will not buckle until the pressure is strong enough.

The EU, or more precisely certain political powers in the EU, want to force Christian churches to their knees. Not, for instance, the clearly politically based claim to power from emergent Islam. And not the Islamistic minority, which unashamedly utilizes violence and against which one moves astonishingly meekly, leaving critics’ lives difficult through the multiple millions spent against Islamophobia. No, it is the Christian churches, who in the countries of the EU significantly back the state, who support democracy, and who enrich civil societies. The churches, who contributed to bringing about the thought of a peaceful Europe and helped bring about the founders of a peaceful Europe – one only has to think about the European originator Robert Schumann.

It does not matter which particular topic we are dealing with. Many a Christian and many a church would rather prefer to dodge various topics. Many topics are too much of a bother to them. Additionally, they do not understand why many topics are so important to other Christians. However, all of them will not be able to avoid the basic question in the long run. The one or the other church, the one or the other theologian may not look so narrow-minded in the public for a longer period of time  – but in the end it will affect everyone.

I am not writing all of this in an agitated and dramatic state of mind. The Christian churches survived Rome’s hostility and downfall, as it did National Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism, and many less brutal challenges. Most Christians in the world wish that they had the freedoms Christians have in the West. The world changes continually, and due to that there are always new, unexpected challenges. Taken on the whole, pressure from outside has not harmed the global expansion of the message of freedom with God through Jesus Christ – on the contrary, the churches growing most strongly around the world are those under pressure.

However, that changes nothing about the fact that this new test of strength is real. Societal forces in the West abuse the state in order to force churches to their knees and to ethically streamline them into conformity with their worldview. The state becomes the prey of a worldview which then oppresses its supposed opponents.

This will bestow many triumphs upon the state, especially if the churches react completely peacefully. However, it will significantly damage society to place citizens in unnecessary dilemmas and throw democracy out of kilter by gagging people. In the end it will only strengthen the Christian faith and reduce compliance with ‘the powers that be.’

In this same connection one finds the family, all too often declared dead and presented as obsolete. It will be shown that the family is not just a random event that has existed for thousands of years, and also not just a random event that has existed much longer than the countries in which we live.

The state increasingly exacts resistance from Christians against a state which they actually endorse and indeed often love. Still, if they are completely and unnecessarily placed before the choice, they will increasingly, and more decidedly, say what Peter and John said: “We must obey God rather than men.” As a Christian, one often has to and wants to obey people. The state is desired by God for the purposes of peaceful coexistence. However, an individual has to obey God more if the state places that individual before a choice. Imprisonment should have restrained Peter and John from speaking publicly about Jesus. Those in power who decided to follow this course of action have long since been forgotten, while the message of Jesus is being proclaimed more than ever. This often occurs under the pleasant protection of religious freedom, but more often in spite of governmental bans or societal threats.

All of this could end bitterly. I do not mean thereby that a fear that Christians will become violent is validated. Churches have a lot of practice in non-violent resistance – against the abandonment of children in Roman times, against slavery in the 18th century, against apartheid in South Africa, against the breakup of the family, and against the suppression of religious education in the Soviet Union. However, a climate is being produced in which, on the one hand, there is an increasing amount of badgering from the sides of the media and the law in which significant attention is taken away from the true problems of our society. Bismarck’s state lasted until 1918. The chances our states and democracies have for survival are surely much greater with the churches than against them.

My call goes out to politicians: Do not participate in the emerging culture war 2.0! Turn your attention to the true problems we have!

My call goes out to judges: Stop the sprawling culture war 2.0 by doing what you can within your legal bounds, through sound judgment and peaceful solutions.

My call goes out to the media: Do not participate in the badgering that evokes social strife, but rather report on religious issues and about minorities of all kinds in a conciliatory manner, democratically and fairly. And let those involved have their say instead of ostracizing them.

My call goes out to the churches, free churches and various Christian communities: Grapple soberly with upcoming developments and lift up your voice. Do not let yourselves be divided because you place different accents on one or the other ethical question, but look rather at the entire picture. Whoever is silent today will himself tomorrow be a target. In the words of Ulrich Parzany, I also say: “Stand up if you are Christians!”

My call goes out to everyone: In the name of a peaceful and democratic society, I ask you to end the emerging culture war 2.0 and not to continually turn the legal screws which inhibit churches’ leeway.

Western Christianity has in large part assimilated to Western culture to the point of almost abandoning itself. A point has been reached where no more is possible without at the same time giving up the Christian faith. Whoever in spite of this wants to force such a situation, may even do Christianity a service, because followers will have to ask themselves anew just what their faith in God actually means in everyday life and how much their faith is worth to them.

The Manhattan Declaration ends poignantly: “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

That is not a threat – that is not what we as Christians are lining up for. It is simply a declaration. And that we mean it seriously has been sufficiently demonstrated in history.

(idea) Evangelicals represent the largest movement within Christianity after the Roman Catholic Church. Worldwide counts are that around 460 million Christians are included in the total of theological conservatives, the majority of which are members of Protestant national churches or free churches. In recent months the German press has for the most part published critical reports about Evangelicals. idea has asked well-known personalities in Germany to describe Evangelical theology and devoutness from their point of view. Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, Rector of the Martin Bucer Seminary and one of the best-known Evangelical ethicists in Germany, reacts against a one-sided view of Evangelical ethics in the public sphere.

A Caricature

When the Green Party politician Volker Beck started a socalled ‘small inquiry’ in the German federal parlament into the ‘Christival’, a large evangelical youth convention, because of supposed workshops against abortion and homosexuality, one could have gotten the impression that Evangelicals are above all against abortion and practicing homosexuality. As a matter of fact, it had been a few years earlier that the then president of the Gnadauer Association, Kurt Heimbucher, in making reference to the large number of state assisted abortions, refused receipt of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. Aside from that, Evangelicals have at all times been against practicing homosexuality. But does being pro-family and pro-child, and being against any sort of premarital sex actually capture the ethics of the almost 500 million Evangelicals around the world?

The reality looks different. Such a one-sided picture of Evangelicals overlooks that it was the Evangelicals who brought about the first movement against slavery in England and in the USA. It was in this connection that the term ‘Evangelical‘ was even first used in England. Such caricatures overlook that Evangelicals were at the forefront in the fight against racism, for example in India, and that at a time when most churches still celebrated the Lord’s Supper separated according to caste. It overlooks that a conservative Evangelical theologian such as Peter Beyerhaus and a youth movement such as the ‘Young Christians’ Offensive’ (Offensive Junger Christen, or OJC) were massively engaged against apartheid in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s even though they rejected all violent forms of overthrowing the practice. A one-sided picture completely overlooks that in the 19^th century the Evangelical Alliance was the first large religious movement worldwide that called for the right to freedom of religion, long before the large churches did this. In this connection they sent delegations to the Turkish Sultan and to the Russian Czar as well as to the rulers of their home countries.

Do the caricatures arouse the idea that the founder of the West German Evangelical Alliance (Westdeutsche Evangelische Allianz), Theodor Christlieb, took steps around the world against the devastating and so-called Indo-British opium trade between India and China, which included action all the way up to the British Parliament? Does one know that in a spectacular manner Christlieb had German and French Christians hug during the Franco-Prussian War and pleaded for peace, something that was decried as treason back at home? Does anyone have a clue that Evangelicals have always and up until today respectfully but critically opposed the state – and not just since abortion, pornography and homosexuality have been liberalized? Does the caricature explain why the UN General Secretary recently praised the ‘Micah Initiative’ of the global alliance in New York, because it belongs to the largest supporters of the UN program to halve poverty and mobilize enormous efforts against poverty around the world – aside from gigantic and respected aid organizations such as World Vision?

Ethics as Sanctification

For starters, ethics for Evangelicals is – in the good tradition of pietism and the movements of awakening, but also in the tradition of reformed and charismatic awakenings – ‘sanctification.’ Ethics means first of all that God in Christ forgives every sinner und that every individual can start a new life. For Evangelicals, ethics also means that every Christian sins and for that reason has to struggle for sanctification. Sanctification cannot be lived out of oneself; rather, every individual Christian lives by the power of the Holy Spirit. On account of this, every Evangelical ethic begins with self-critique, with the awareness that every Christian can think and act wrongly, and that only God can change something about that.

The connection between ethics and sanctification is demonstrated in the German Evangelical Alliance’s 1972 confession of faith. It confesses “the divine inspiration of the Holy Scripture, their complete reliability, and highest authority in all questions of faith. . .” It continues this sentence, however, by supplementing: “. . . and in the way life is conducted.” The relationship to the Bible, which bears the testimony of Christ to us, comes to a head in life as it is lived out, as is stated in the central verses II Timothy 3:16-17. Furthermore, the confession refers “to the work of the Holy Spirit, which effects conversion and new birth in an individual, lives in the believer, and enables the believer to experience sanctification.”

Therefore, for Evangelicals ethical action is an expression of their existence as Christians. It has to do with a ‘life of sanctification” by the Holy Spirit through the gracious action of God and his Spirit.

Evangelicals‘ Social Ethics

In addition to personal ethics, Evangelicals’ social ethics are above all demonstrated in the topics of marriage and family as well as in work with children and youth. Starting from that point, the other fields of social ethics are defined. For this reason, Evangelicals always view the fight against poverty to mean a fight against family poverty and the neglect of women and children. The Bible calls for this all too clearly.

The free church element attracts attention to itself by emphasizing the right of children to freely choose when to be baptized and become members, a precondition of religious freedom. It also shapes the equal rights of lay people, which led early on to a situation among Evangelicals where women were active as missionaries and social reformers, and where locals were able to advance to positions as church leaders earlier than in other Western missionary organizations. The Evangelical movement feeds on pacifist and Baptist churches as well as on the rather state-supporting theology of Reformed churches.

A load-bearing element of the Evangelical social ethic is readily overlooked: the belief that conversion and awakening sets free enormous powers for change. Work around the world among alcoholics (e.g., the Blue Cross [das Blaue Kreuz]), drug addicts (e.g., Teen Challenge), and among inmates (e.g., the Black Cross [das Schwarze Kreuz], or Prison Fellowship International, the latter having been started by the Nixon advisor Charles Colson after his release from prison – Colson had been convicted for his ‘Watergate’ involvement) makes it clear that every Saul – a murderer – can become a Paul.

Evangelicals on the Right and Left

The Evangelical movement feeds on many roots, and today it has enormous bandwidth. The reason for this lies in the fact that the priesthood of all believers and the reticence against centralized church structures are central elements found among Evangelicals. US Presidents Jimmy Carter und George W. Bush were personally shaped by experiences of Evangelical awakenings, and yet their politics could not have been more different.

Recently in Welt Till Stoldt alluded to the fact that there are not only Evangelicals who are right-leaning, but rather that there are ‘left-leaning’ Evangelicals who are, for instance, against the military and big business. This mirrors the worldwide situation, where one has important state-supporting Evangelical ethicists such as Wayne Grudem, Ken Gnanakan, P. Netha, and Mario Aviles. On the other side there are important ‘Evangelical liberation theologians’ such as Ron Sider, René Padilla, and Samuel Escobar.

This also applies similarly to Germany. The leading Evangelical Evangelist Ulrich Parzany was known as the leader of ‘left-leaning Evangelical’ Weigel House in Essen, Germany through the ‘spiritual double-track’ resolution. This was a step taken against NATO’s double-track resolution regarding the stationing medium range ballistic missiles in Germany. On the other hand, other Evangelicals were completely in line with the government’s actions and called for an arms build-up.

Another example also demonstrates the diversity of the movement: for many Evangelicals Evangelical private schools or even homeschooling is indispensible, while others become strongly involved with the idea of a Christian presence in state schools. On this issue no consensus is in sight.

In addition to the many Evangelical ethicists coming out of the tradition of Reformed churches – today, for example, coming out of Korea and South Africa – there are also ‘dispensational ethicists’ – nowadays coming out of Canada and India, for instance. However, if one compares my writings on ethics, which are based on Reformed and early church approaches, with those of Horst Afflerbach, who teaches at the leading Brethren church training center in Wiedenest, one will find in many areas a large amount of agreement.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The ethical strength of the worldwide Evangelical movement is solidarity exercised upon a common basis. It has a strong ability to mobilize, which originates with personal relationships. It is unmistakably active, and so much so, that intellectual reflection regarding it occasionally tends to take a back seat.

There are also weaknesses. Participants in the Evangelical movement conduct too little discourse among themselves – it has only been for only about two years that ethicists, for instance, who teach at Evangelical training centers in German-speaking Europe, have been meeting to conduct annual exchanges at the Institute for Ethics and Values in Gießen, Germany. Specifically in light of the large denominational spectrum among Evangelicals, what is called for is that everyone not behave as though they alone read the Bible correctly, but rather that an open and honest conversation occurs.

With the exception of the USA, there is practically nothing invested in true research. Think tanks such as the International Institute for Religious Freedom or the Institute for Life and Family Sciences both date from recent times. There are still too many Evangelicals who oppose any kind of societal involvement whatsoever. The teaching of the ‘prosperity gospel’ has disastrous repercussions on ethical questions such as the fight against poverty or how to address crises.

Only in recent times has there been any success in what shaped the Evangelical Alliance in the 19^th century: to participate in the creation of an international Christian ethic, for instance, through the ‘Micah Initiative’ of the World Evangelical Alliance or through the common formulation of an ethical codex for missions and human rights together with the World Council of Churches and the Vatican.

In terms of publishing there also remains much to do in Germany. At Hänssler Publishing a ‘short and sweet’ series has been released that covers societal topics such as the new lower class, climate change, the Sharia, the multi-cultural society, and eating disorders. At Brunnen Publishing the first volumes in an ‘Ethics and Values’ series have been released. Ethical handbooks authored by Georg Huntemann, Klaus Bockmühl, Horst Afflerbach, and Helmut Burkhardt can be mentioned, yet still too little has been done. In addition, there are a number of topics where there is a need to catch up, for instance in the areas of medical ethics, terminal care, or the abuse of religious power.

In summary, Evangelical ethics cannot be considered exhausted by the topics of abortion and homosexuality. On the contrary, Evangelicals, in their diversity and dissimilarity, have demonstrated a high level of societal involvement at all times. For them, faith in Christ is inseparably connected with ‘right action.’ What is missing is critical reflection and intellectual penetration with respect to ethics. However, the first steps have been taken. Therefore, one can hope that Evangelicals‘ ethical concerns will be presented by the press in a more differentiated manner in the future.