ArchiveTheology

Who is scared of Evangelical Terrorists?

Against maliciously equating Evangelicals with Islamic Terrorists

Within three days I found the following randomly chosen reports about Islamists, which were published almost simultaneously in practically all major media in Germany: in the Pakistan capital of Islamabad, an Islamic suicide bomber had killed four UN employees at the local headquarters of the World Food Program when a bomb he was carrying exploded.

• For an entire day Islamists paralyzed the headquarters of the Pakistani Army by placing it under fire and taking hostages. Now 30,000 Pakistani soldiers are attempting to move against the Islamists and compensate for the disgrace.
• A one-hour German language video with an Islamic group tied to Al Qaeda, in which German and German-speaking Islamists threatened Germany, shows background pictures of terror training camps in which numerous blond or European looking children are conspicuous.
• In Yemen the government is fighting a desperate battle against the Islamic Al Qaeda network, which wants to expand Yemen into its new operational headquarters. Although the future of Islamic terrorism could be decided here, Yemen is missing international support.
• In Hamburg a ten-man Islamic terror cell that traveled in March to Hindu Kush was discovered. In Germany there is estimated to be around 80 trained Islamic terrorists at present living in the country.
• In Berlin in one fell swoop 155 officials were searching through apartments in order to move against a group of 15 Islamists who are suspected of planning attacks against Russia and who wanted to defect.
• A book about honor killings that was about to be released was withdrawn at the last minute by the publisher Droste Verlag due to fear of acts of vengeance by Islamists.

That was all just within three days!

And Evangelicals are compared with such Islamists in the sme media? Absurd! Unfounded! Malevolent! Even to compare my peaceful Muslim neighbors with such terrorists would be a disgrace, but peaceful, often pacifistically oriented Evangelicals?

Evangelicals are allowed to pay required fees for German state TV ARD and ZDF television so that with conspiratoranial means they can ‘prove’ and advance what cannot be demonstrated – that Evangelicals are a type of Christian Islamists. The fact is: there are no Evangelical terrorists, no suicide attackers, and no Evangelical network which is planning to conduct something that brings death and violence. Anything else is virtual nonsense and the worst type of slander.

Where is it necessary to search for weapons in Evangelical churches? Where are Evangelical terror camps being maintained, army headquarters attacked, and skirmishes conducted against 30,000 soldiers?

Who is scared of traveling to a particular country for vacation because Evangelicals live there? Where are the Evangelicals who are threatening journalists who hold dissenting ideas or threatening their families? Why do Evangelicals not come under the rubric of constitutional protection, either in Germany or anywhere else in the world?

And in addition to this: in spite of the non-stop horror reports about Islamism, we are – and rightly so – repeatedly reminded and even remind ourselves again and again that we have to distinguish between Islamists and peaceful Muslims. For once just consider the thought that the 1.8 million Evangelicals in Germany would want to limit freedom with violence. And while no one has witnessed anything like that, at the same time several thousand Islamists keep us on edge?

In the case of 400 million Evangelicals, in contrast, it seems as if one does not have to differentiate between Terrorists (wherever they might be) and the millions and millions of peaceful adherents. One negative example is enough to make everyone responsible for their counterparts! Even if there were to be one single Evangelical terrorist or an individual who even dreamed of being a terrorist, one would still have to clearly distinguish between that individual and the millions and millions of peaceful Evangelicals.

One more question to pose to ARD and ZDF television: Is it not also an aspect of religious freedom that one is to be protected from governmental and semi-governmental institutions? Does our state media know that there is no persecution of minorities where the media is not playing a central role? And does our state media know that nowadays it is often the media who more than anyone else decides which minorities are seen as victims and which ones are leprous and themselves held accountable for the situation?

Martin Bucers Handbook on Pastoral Theology

My friend Dr. George Ella, who teaches History of Reformation at our school (see here), has written a marvellous and emphatic review of a new translation of the first Protestant pastoral theology by Martin Bucer (1491-1551). Our Martin Bucer Seminary and research Institutes is not only named after Bucer, but sees itself in his footsteps in the general theologigal approach as well as in his pastoral theology, as proven by our yearbook of 2003 “Die Wiederentdeckung des Glaubens in der Seelsorge: Von der Weisheit der Väter lernen, edited by Ron Kubsch (‘The Rediscovery of Faith in Counseling: Learning from the Wisdom of the Fathers’) and of 2001 “Anwalt der Liebe – Martin Bucer als Theologe und Seelsorger”, edited by myself (‘Advocate of Love: Martin Bucer as Theologian and counselor’) – the latterwill be published in English soon.


Martin Bucer. Concerning the True Care of Souls. Translated by Peter Beale. 218 pp. Banner of Truth: Edinburgh (www.banneroftruth.org) £14 / $24. By Dr. George Ella (www.evangelica.de).

Reformed interest in recent decades has mainly concentrated on the teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564) and Theodore Beza (1519-1605). Their mentors, Martin Bucer (1491-1551) of Strasbourg and Henry Bullinger of Zürich (1504-1575), though pioneer Reformers, are almost forgotten and their doctrines neglected. This neglect has often led to a severe misunderstanding concerning the origin and development of the Reformed faith. Bucer and Bullinger were seen traditionally as the fathers of what is now called doctrinal Calvinism and the theological foster-fathers of Calvin and Beza. The Genevans never attained to the scope and depth of their mentors’ more irenic and thorough-going Reformed teaching. Bucer and Bullinger refused to sign the Melanchthonian Augsburg Confession which Calvin and Beza accepted as Scriptural in all points. Calvin did sign the Reformed Consensus Tigurinus in 1549, after ten years of opposition to Reformed teaching, but rejected it at once under pressure from Beza who proposed a more Lutheran formula. Beza’s ambiguity regarding the Lord’s Supper left Cardinal Lorraine thinking that Rome and Geneva agreed. Calvin and Beza’s understanding of the Word of God and the Canon likened those of Luther and Zwingli and lacked the fullness and clarity of Bucer’s and Bullinger’s doctrine.

It was thus with great expectations that I opened my courtesy copy of Bucer’s ‘Von der wahren Seelsorge’, translated under the new English title ‘Concerning the True Care of Souls’. I pitched into the book at once. The late David Wright gives an excellent Historical Introduction to the background of Bucer’s 1538 work, showing how Bucer was awakened in the birth-years of the Reformation  and quickly took a leading part. When Calvin entered the field over a decade later he soon became a Buceran, moulding his thoughts, works, evangelical practice and teaching on Bucer’s writings. Wright mentions the difficulties involved in understanding Bucer’s quaint language and style but it was no different in 1538. When speaking at a Zürich conference that year, Bucer’s fellow-members complained that he was incomprehensible. Being familiar with Bucer’s original, I must praise Beale for doing a terrific work of translation. Bucer’s Early New High German in its insular Strasbourg form is no easy code to break. Readers may download a full copy of Bucer’s original work at hardenberg.jalb.de free of charge.

Bucer’s work starts with a definition of the Church showing that her rule must be by the Church and for the Church. He declared, ‘We have separated from the Antichrist, not from anyone in authority over the Church,’ finding his guidelines in the epistles to Timothy and Titus. He thus maintained that any secular rule is unscriptural. The Strasburg Council eventually reacted to this by forcing Bucer into exile. In a Biblical form of church government, ministers must abide by the Word under Christ or be declared hirelings. Bucer sought for ministers who preached repentance and faith, essentials neglected by the papists. The author then deals with the fellowship and duties of Christians to one another and to the community at large, emphasising Christ’s sole rule in His Church. Anyone who emphasises his own governing authority in the Church, Bucer claims, merely scatters the sheep. All pastors, teachers and carers of the poor must be appointed and commissioned by the congregation. The term elders, for Bucer, incorporates a wide variety of offices within the pastoral ministry. Some elders are to be chosen as bishops who elect further elders to their various appointments. He calls ministers  to the poor, ‘deacons, archdeacons and subdeacons’, each with special tasks. There was no welfare state in those days. Bucer gives Bible sources and adds lengthy comments to back up what he is saying, stressing the pastoral care expected of each office-bearer. His words on the care of wives for their husbands is a lovely mixture of Bible truths supported by common sense. English Reformer John Jewel recommended a plurality of bishops and elders in the local church but Bucer goes even further, imagining churches composed almost entirely of Christians actively engaged in the ministry. Though Bucer objects to secular rulers managing the church, he nevertheless had to require the presence of civic rulers at church elections. The Emperor liked to keep his eye on what was going on.

Bucer now goes on to outline what the principle work of pastoral care entails for the Church as a whole and for each member in particular. He sees this joint task as searching for the lost lambs; caring for the stray lambs; looking after injured sheep; strengthening weak sheep and guarding and feeding the sleek and strong sheep. Bucer then gives sound Biblical advice for each of these pastoral tasks. Chapter 12 is on Christian obedience and Chapter 13 provides a summary of the book. The two appendices are a note on married ministers by Robert Stupperich and one by Bucer on Church Guardians, a group of three members with special oversight over the ministry and church life.

The translator helpfully refers regularly to the pagination in Stupperich’s 1964 ‘official’ critical edition. The natural English title, one would think, should be ‘True Pastoral Care’ as the book is concerned with shepherding. Beale, Bucer-like, prefers what he calls an ‘awkward’ version. The translator drops his usual high style occasionally to use colloquial and stilted forms, probably caused by his use of the NIV, whereas the AV fits better into Bucer’s phraseology and style when translating Scripture. In fact, the AV approaches modern speech, which it has influenced greatly, in grammar and syntax, often far closer than the now antiquated NIV. So, too, the lack of index in a handbook of Christian instruction is a great weakness. These criticisms are only spots on the sun and the book is so good, so useful, so sturdy and so wonderfully cheap that though the eager Christian might have Calvin and Bullinger on his shelves, he ought to have Bucer in his pocket.

The text is also available in quotable form as an MBS-text here.

See further good review of the same book here and here.

Evangelicals against Racism

This is a translation of a German news article by A. Wirth written for ProKompakt on the publication of my book „Rassismus“, see here, see the German original here: proKOMPAKT 28/2009 pp. 17–18. An English translation of the book is underway.

With his new book „Racism“, the Evangelical scholar and author Thomas Schirrmacher wants to do away with prejudices – this is something which is still important nowadays. Furthermore, Schirrmacher is convinced: Evangelicals have always vehemently fought against racism.

The core of racism, writes Schirrmacher, is “what is different in the other person” and the belief that this otherness makes people superior or inferior. Nevertheless, in reading his work it quickly becomes clear: Racism is, from a biological point of view, nonsense. The results of modern genetics have unobjectionably demonstrated that there are no different human races, and rather that there is only one species of mankind.” Schirrmacher also justifies this position biblically with the aid of the Epistle of James in the New Testament, saying that even proven differences between human races express nothing about the equal dignity everyone has.

In this passage we find the following “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing right.But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.” In the United Nations charter the following is stated and holds to Christian tradition: “All human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock. They are born equal in dignity and rights and all form an integral part of humanity.”

Evangelicals called for the Abolition of Slavery

In conversation with the Christian media magazine pro, the author empahsized the positive connection between the fight against racism and the Evangelical movement: “Evangelical revivalism was significantly involved in bringing an end to slavery. It was at this point that the designation Evangelicals came about in the first place. This applies to the legal abolishment of slavery in Great Britain as well as to the anti-slavery movement in the USA. Among Evangelicals in general, free church Quakers and Methodists, for instance, played a central role in the anti-slavery movement in the USA. Best known in this connection is the Evangelical classic, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In my book I quote a historian who shows that racism had much better chances in France and Germany, because there are hardly any Evangelicals there. In India William Carey, a British missionary and language researcher whom many view as the father of Evangelicals, fought racism found in Christian churches in India under the caste system in the 18^th century.”

Nowadays the internationalization of the Evangelical movement means that racism does not have a chance, says Schirrmacher. “In my Evangelical environment, from the time I was small, there were Indonesians, Kenyans and Latin Americans whom I got to know as role models, so racism was obsolete before I got to know about it on the school playground. Additionally, the World Evangelical Alliance has repeatedly and clearly taken a position against all forms of racism,” says Schirrmacher. “As far as the present is concerned, I really would not know where racism could be expected to find a home in Evangelical churches. For a long time now we have been used to reading books from all over the world, taking the foremost spiritual leaders from all cultures as role models and welcoming people of all cultures and ethnic groups. Since the majority of the Evangelical movement stems from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, they set the tone in many committees.”

And what about North America, we ask the German professor of the sociology of religion? “The Evangelical movement in the USA”, he say, “is often criticized for having right-wing leanings. But at the same time a lot of people forget that there are not only ‘white’ Evangelicals. Rather, a lot of African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians are Evangelicals. Unfortunately, in the USA there is a broad right-wing spectrum that says America is white, English-speaking, and Christian. That has little to do with Christian churches.”

Schirrmacher primarily wrote his book in order to provide enlightenment about racism. This is something that is still important to do today. “First of all, racism is such a seriously mistaken position that there simply cannot be enough written against it. However, you would really be astonished at how few books in the German book market there are on racism. And most of them are very technical, very specialized, and hardly understandable for the man on the street.”

Against ‘Blacks,’ Jews and ‘Gypsies’

In his book the theologian writes about three “types of racism that are the most internationally widespread and can be tracked over the course of many centuries.” They are directed against the co-called ‘blacks’ or people with darker skin color, against Jews, and against so-called ‘gypsies,’ which is to say against Sintis and Romanies. Schirrmacher has determined that it is simply nonsense to speak of ‘racist differences.’ If anyone in Central Europe wants to speak of some sort of race that is in any way stable after all the ‘racial mixing’ that took place in the Roman Empire, subsequent migrations, campaigns of conquest from every direction, the invasion of Asian troops on horseback, and immigration from all over the world, then the only explanation is that the wish is father to the thought and the modern nation state would like to have a biological, religious, or other type of fixed anchoring for its citizens. Studies of Y-chromosomes suggest that the people of Europe have no identifiable origin, but that they all go back to repeatedly new waves of immigration from all different directions.

Thomas Schirrmacher is the head of the Martin Bucer Seminary, a Professor for the Sociology of Religion at the State University of Oradea in Romania, and the Director of the World Evangelical Alliance’s International Institute for Religious Freedom. He received his doctorate in 1985 in Ecumenical Theology in the Netherlands, in 1989 in Cultural Anthropology in Los Angeles and in 2007 in Comparative Religious Studies at the University of Bonn. He has released other works relating to the topic at hand, most recently The Multicultural Society and Hitler’s Religion of War.

Hope founded on Salvation – A Bible Study by the Pope

In his third year as Pope, Benedict XVI set forth his second encyclical “Spe Salvi.”, published 30^th of November, 2007 (www.vatican.va) Traditionally, the first two Latin words of an encyclical provide the topic of the encyclical, and in this case it means “in this hope we are saved,” which is a quote from Paul’s Letter to the Romans (8:24). In 50 numbered sections the Pope unfolds a Biblical teaching on hope.

From numerous New Testament texts the Pope demonstrates that hope is a central component of faith and that people without God are people without a sustainable hope. He expends considerable time on New Testament texts which say that hope does not rest upon an internal subjective attitude, but rather on objective facts. He just as soundly highlights that hope and salvation in the New Testament are not to be understood purely individualistically. It is rather the case that Christians in community with Christ and as God’s people have hope.

Subsequently, the Pope delineated between the Christian understanding of hope and the subjective conception of hope of the French Revolution, of industrial optimism, of Marxism, and of Humanism and calls for a long overdue ‘self-criticism of modern times.’ “It is not science that saves mankind. Mankind will be saved by love.” (12) Prayer and undergoing suffering belong to the practice of a belief in hope, to which the moralism of atheism and of progress ideologies has no answers.

The encyclical will supposedly not be counted as one of the great encyclicals that will still be quoted one hundred years from now. This is due to the fact that the encyclical neither announces a surprising change within the Catholic Church, nor does it take a stance with respect to a highly controversial topic. Calmly and matter-of-factly it refers to the large difference between Christian hope and the missing or illusory and worldly hope of Western ideas of progress. It highlights that Christian hope is only thinkable because there is salvation in Christ and because there are transcendent linchpins beyond earthly time, such as the final judgment, salvation, and eternal life.

However, in another aspect the encyclical contrasts to earlier encyclicals, namely through its strong concentration on the interpretation of New Testament texts and the practical absence of typical Catholic points of view. The encyclical has this in common with the book the Pope wrote about Jesus, although the book was published expressly as private remarks. This time, however, the encyclical is a doctrinal document.

In the first 47 paragraphs of the encyclical there is no statement that would be conspicuous were it to be heard coming from an Evangelical pulpit. In Pope Johannes Paul II’s encyclicals it was exactly the opposite. One could find almost no sentence where Mary, the salvific role of the church, or another Catholic feature was not mentioned. In paragraph 48 prayers for the dead are briefly mentioned. Maria is not appealed to until the final paragraphs 49-50. And whoever reads this long address to Maria will astonishingly determine that it consists practically of a compilation of New Testament statements about Maria and Jesus. A teaching about Maria that is particularly Catholic is not mentioned. The final paragraphs also seem to indicate that the curia required their inclusion so that the encyclical would not sound completely un-Catholic.

(The systematic theologian and religious sociologist Prof. Thomas Schirrmacher has authored numerous books regarding Catholic teaching as well as the book Hope for Europe.)