Peter Leithart: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom. Downers Grove (IL): IVP Academic, 2010. 373 pp. US$ 27

Peter J. Leithart has written a book to save the honor of Emperor Constantine. It is above all directed against the thesis of the American Mennonite John Howard Yoder (1927-1997), for whom Constantine was the epitome of Christianity’s falling away from its pacifistic origins and who stands for the centuries-long evil of the state church and for the persecution of heretics.

Leithart does not set out to make an original contribution to research. Rather, he seeks to put the much more positive description of Constantine found in specialized literature as well as the shift in the view of Constantine found in scholarly circles in front of the deeply held prejudices of many present day Christians. With enormous diversity, he unfurls research literature in the footnotes from the last hundred years and demonstrates that the actual Constantine has neither to do with the acclaimed Christian emperor of the Middle Ages, nor with the bogeyman of the Enlightenment, but also not with the bogeyman of free church authors. Constantine can only be understood in light of the reality of the 4^th century and could not have known what the future would bring. Measured against that, in Leithart’s opinion, Constantine was a convinced believer in Christianity and found a path between advancing the Christian faith and offering religious freedom to the majority of the non-Christian population. In the process, one always has to take the entire spectrum of results from research into consideration. Thus there are unmistakable and noteworthy influences from the side of Christianity upon his legislation and, on the other hand, there are completely uninfluenced areas as well.

Let us for instance take architecture (p. 112-125) as an example of the “complexity” (p. 113) and “ambiguity” (p. 114) of Constantine’s actions. On the one hand, the Emperor built a large number of public buildings which were thoroughly adorned with Roman and Greek religious Art. On the other hand, the building of churches in Rome and then in Byzantium stood at the center of his personal interest. A typical example is the Arch of Constantine in Rome. At first it may not appear as if it differs from other such structures. Apart from what are in part Christian military emblems, a direct Christian connection is lacking. On the other hand, nowhere are the Roman Gods thanked, most notably Jupiter as was common up to that time. An image of Jupiter is indeed visible, but Constantine is turning his back to it. Instead, the great God who revealed himself to Constantine is thanked. Christians understood this from a Christian point of view, while for others it was not automatically an affront.

Christian symbols are also a good example. For a longer period of time after 312 A.D., they were on coins and standards in addition to older religious symbols. Gradually, Christian symbols replaced older religious symbols up to the point when pagan deities represented by human depictions finally only served as mythical decoration (pp. 71-79).

Was Constantine’s conversion to Christianity a ‘true’ conversion? Leithart correctly emphasizes that the question is really to ask what was meant at that time? Constantine took the Christological decision made at Nicea personally (pp. 89-90), which is more important for us today than at that time. Leithart could have at this stage pointed out more clearly – as Girardet did in the works that are subsequently discussed – that conversion above all else meant giving up idol worship. What should have been worked out much more intensely is the central role played by renouncing sacrifice to Jupiter after the victory over the co-emperor (pp. 66-67). Leithart quotes a 1955 German source at this point, which, however, he was arguably not able to read. He is not aware of the comprehensive German studies on this subject (see below).

Leithart is also on the right track with respect to other questions. However, he could have had better supporting documents to cite in the form of German sources and would have been able to more strongly point out the significance of his results. Leithart thus assumes that Constantine’s actual vision of the cross already took place in 310 A.D. in Grand in the Vosges Mountains (today in France), probably as a halo (pp. 77-78). However, he does not cite the newest evidence for this.

Fortunately, Leithart labels the Edict of Milan a “fiction” (pp. 98-99). Both Emperors Constantine and Licinius indeed agreed after a meeting in Milan and via a letter dated June 313 A.D. from Nicomedia that confiscated church property would be returned and that religious freedom for Christians granted. However, it did not establish their leading position, let alone Christianity’s position as a state religion (pp. 99-100). As a matter of fact, Constantine did not limit the freedom of non-Christians.

Leithart is increasingly concerned not only with saving Constantine’s honor. Rather, he is concerned to put up Constantine as a model for Christian politics. From Leithart’s point of view, the following applies: “Constantine provides in many respects a model for Christian political practice” (p.11). The statement that in many respects Constantine stands for Christian political action goes far beyond that which Leithart documents and especially what he refutes. It is indeed to be acknowledged that Constantine humanized law and ended brutal elements of Roman culture due to Christian motivation. Constantine also accomplished the fostering of Christianity without limiting the religious freedom of others. But is that sufficient for him to function as a role model? Would one not have had to discuss more carefully whether it is simultaneously possible to promote Christianity as a religion desired by the head of state and religious freedom? Would one not have to discuss the degree to which a Christian as a leader of state can and should shape the political scene?

Leithart comprehensively documents the one-sided nature of the viewpoint held by Yoder and others that the early church was completely pacifistic, that it did not change its point of view until with or after Constantine, and that serving in the Roman Army was not allowed. The fact of the matter is that there was a broad discussion in the early church regarding this question. Also, Christians served as soldiers and officers in the Roman army (pp. 255-278), which simultaneously held police powers, already prior to Constantine and all the way back to the time of the apostles. However, one also has at this point a long way to go before seeing Constantine in the position of a role model, which in the absence of pacifism would have to clear up the question of how the relationship of the Christian church to legal institutions within the state monopoly on power should look.

I would have personally wished for a clearer separation into a historical section on Constantine and an ethical segment on the relationship between the church and state. Since Yoder mixes both questions beyond recognition, Leithart follows him, even if it is much simpler to separate Leithart’s thoughts on one point from the other.

For me it involves four complex issues which become blurred: 1) What can reliably be said about the biography of Constantine? 2) How much of Christianity from the late Middle Ages is traceable back to Constantine and how much is not? This is to ask whether the Constantinian Age is correctly so-called or not 3) What is good and right – that means, what is biblically and theologically ideal? and 4) How is Constantine and the later development of the Middle Ages to be evaluated in light of the ideal, or is such an evaluation not even able to be made?

Given the strong fixation the book has on Yoder, above all in the latter section (pp. 254-342), and the announced transition from biography to polemics in the course of the book (pp. 10-11), the book is unfortunately tailored to the American market and especially in the latter part of the book not relevant for Christians in Europe or in the Southern hemisphere.

2 Three Books by Klaus M. Girardet

I would like to juxtapose three works by Klaus M. Girardet with the book by Leithart.

A) Klaus M. Girardet. Der Kaiser und sein Gott: Das Christentum im Denken und in der Religionspolitik Konstantins des Großen (title translation: The Emperor and his God: Christianity in Constantine the Great’s Thought and Religious Politics). Millenium-Studien 27. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. 212 pp.

B) Klaus M. Girardet (ed.). Kaiser Konstantin der Große: Historische Leistung und Rezeption in Europa (title translation: Emperor Constantine the Great: Historical Achievements and Their Reception in Europe). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 2007, in part.: Klaus M. Girardet. “Das Christentum in Denken und in der Politik Kaiser Konstantin d. Gr.“ (title translation: “Christianity in the Thought and Politics of Emperor Constantine the Great“). pp. 29-54.

C) Klaus M. Girardet. Die konstantinische Wende: Voraussetzungen und geistige Grundlagen der Religionspolitik Konstantins des großen (title translation; The Constantinian Turn: Preconditions and Spiritual Foundations of the Religious Policies of Constantine the Great). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006.1; 2000.2.

Let us justapose Leithart’s book on Constantine with the books by the German researcher Klaus Girardet. The reason for the intensive amount of research on Constantine from the German side is that, among others, Trier was for a time his capital city.

Girardet differentiates three fields of research (A, pp. 22-24): 1. A basic approach that Constantine was already innately Christian, or that between 310 and 312 A.D or over a longer period of time he turned towards Christianity. 2. Perceptions that Constantine turned towards monotheism and/or a solar cult with certain Christian elements but did not become a Christian according to standards of that time or the present. 3. The notion that there are no indications for either the first or the second interpretation.

In one of his articles, he answers the question “Were there Christian Emperors before Constantine?“(C, pp. 13-38) very convincingly with a negative answer by reference to every individual emperor and his family prior to Constantine.

Girard tellingly rejects modern standards for whether Constantine’s conversion was ‘real’ or ‘correct’ and whether Constantine was ‘orthodox’ (C, p. 59). He assumes that the preeminent sign of being a Christian and of becoming a Christian in antiquity and in the 4^th century was the ”renunciation of the cult of the gods” (C, p. 60). Thus what has to be asked above all is whether Constantine carried this out. “The refusal to sacrifice to idols” is something that is well documented with respect to Constantine. (C, pp. 60-71, A, pp. 78-88). This is due to the fact, among others, that directly after the victory over his co-emperor, Constantine moved directly into his palace following his victory procession in Rome on October 29, 312 A.D. (which strictly speaking was not one since it was the co-emperor and not enemies who had been defeated). Also, and for all to see, he did not present the normal sacrifice to Jupiter Optimus Maximus at the capitol.

Girardet finds many pieces of evidence for this. The heathen historian Zosimos (II 7.2) sees the act of omitting the thank offering to Jupiter as the reason for the beginning of the political decline of Rome (C, p. 70). The thank offering to Jupiter is also missing on the Arch of Constantine erected in 315 A.D., where instead of thanks to Jupiter one sees “instinctu divinitatis,” an expression of thanks to the inspiration of the Godhead.

It is striking that in accounts beginning in 312 A.D., or even on the Arch of Constantine, God, who brought about the victory, initially has no name. Rather, God is generally referred to as “summa divitas” or something similar (C, p. 68).

Shortly after the refusal to present the thank offering to Jupiter in 312 A.D., the first coins appear with a Christogram (B, p. 42). Everything speaks for there already being an emblem of Christ on the helmet of the emperor and on standards (A, pp. 64-67), whereby the emblem of Christ was arguably not the familiar cross but rather the Chi-Rho.

Girardet elaborates extensively on the three central texts regarding the vision of the sign of Christ at the Milvian Bridge (A, pp. 30-40). Nowhere is it said, according to Girardet, that the vision first occurred at the bridge (A S. 49-51). Constantine is instead supposed to have seen a so-called “halo” in Grand in what is today the French Vosges Mountains. His accompanying military escort command was also then able to see it. A halo is an atmospheric light effect caused by the refraction or reflection of light by ice crystals. It can take the form of a small inner sun with four rays going in all directions like a cross.

Furthermore, Girardet provides a lot of evidence from Constantine’s early speeches beginning in 312 A.D. that demonstrate his partisanship for Christianity (A, pp. 89-123). Constantine’s late baptism is a normal thing from Girardet’s point of view and was at that time common, especially since Constantine apparently assumed that he would no longer be able to wear the imperial purple clothing afterwards (A, pp. 106-107).

Girardet’s account “Nichtchristen im Denken und Handeln Konstantins” (“Non-Christians in Constantine’s Thought and Actions,” C, pp. 113-133, see also A, pp. 137-139) is also interesting. Constantine forced Christianity upon no one and allowed heathens their freedom. Similar to Leithart, he sees in Constantine a measure of the element of religious freedom not found in Roman emperors prior to that time.

Essays

Let us stake a look at a number of essays published by Girardet. Tiziana J. Chiusi (“Der Einfluß des Christentums auf die Gesetzgebung Konstantins“ [title translation: “The Influence of Christianity on Constantine’s Legislation”]. pp. 55-64 in: Klaus M. Girardet [ed.]. Kaiser Konstantin der Große [title translation: Emperor Constantine the Great], op cit.) shows Constantine’s legislative ambivalence. More strict laws against the flight of slaves stand next to laws calling for humane treatment of slaves and the favoring of their release (B, p. 60). Clear Christian influence is seen in the abolishment of the death penalty by crucifixion, the prohibition on facial branding, the prohibition on gladiator games (B, p. 61), and the introduction of Sunday as a day of rest, a clear promotion of and publicity for Christianity (B, p. 63).

I find the three foundational changes within Christianity brought about by Constantine and listed and explained by Karl-Heinz Ohlig to be groundbreaking (“Strukturelle Auswirkungen der Konstantinischen Wende auf das Christentum“ [title translation: “Structural Repercussions of the Constantinian Turn on Christianity], pp. 75-86 in: Klaus M. Girardet [Hg.]. Kaiser Konstantin der Große. [title translation: Emperor Constantine the Great], op cit.): the sacralization of Christianity, the Hellenization of Christianity, and the provision of a legal basis for Christianity.

The sacralization of Christianity had above all to do with the role of the church, its offices and the sacraments, since from that time on ritualistic practice led by sacral men has been central (B, p. 81). The legal basis for Christianity has been maintained in the Catholic Church until today and is foundational within it (B, p. 82). According to Ohlig, however, the most far-reaching consequences are attributed to the Hellenization of Christianity (B, p. 85). These are all issues which Leithart does not address.

Since my dissertation on Theodor Christlieb in 1985, the Methodist researcher Karl-Heinz Vogt has contributed new material on Christlieb himself and on the topic of the Alliance and religious freedom. However, for the past 25 years what has been missing has been a significant advance in research history on the Alliance in Germany, indeed for the time prior to World War II on the worldwide history. There has also not been anything substantial on the early history of the World Evangelical Alliance for a longer period of time. Researchers have likewise not had trouble containing their enthusiasm for the history of religious freedom in the 19^th century in general. And now comes this excellent and mammoth piece of work!

It is a large-format book with 947 pages of pure text, a large print area, and small print: This 2004 professorial dissertation does justice to the reputation Germans have for writing the fattest of all books. Sometimes it is bent on detail, with everything meticulously documented from files and contemporary newspapers, and it makes the book the most rigorous (and best) depiction of the history prior to the Evangelical Alliance as well as the Evangelical Alliance’s early history. Today, the World Evangelical Alliance represents 600 million Christians worldwide, of which only a fraction is German-speaking. It is too bad that for this reason this treasure will remain hidden to the largest segment of these people. This is due to the fact that an English translation of this amount of text, while arguably urgently necessary, is unfortunately very unlikely.

As far as it can be reconstructed from the sources, this opus treats 1. The actual history such as meetings, campaigns, and international expansion, chronicled for the reader, 2. The role played by key personalities, and 3. The main focus of the Alliance’s work (especially the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, weeks of prayer, missions, publications). Whoever would like to pursue an individual topic – for instance the history of the international World Evangelical Alliance New Year Week of Prayer – can do this very well via the finely laid out outline and index. Whoever also wants to pursue the history of the Alliance up to 1879 in a variety of countries such as Great Britain, England, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, India, or Japan, will make a find.

For many details, this is the first time one finds documentation (e.g., the early Evangelical Alliance’s advocacy of the protection of animals), and I even found something new on Christlieb which complements my dissertation (Christlieb and Reconciliation with France in New York [747-752], Christlieb’s campaign against the opium trade [856-858], History of the West German Evangelical Alliance [921-922]).

Lindemann sees the Alliance as being from the outset the first organized form of ecumenism, as the sole true ecumenical organization which emerged from revival in the 19^th century (15). He shows that the Alliance itself frequently used the word ‘ecumenical’ in its early documents (938, and often). “It produced a climate which facilitated the founding of organizations which were the precursor of the World Council of Churches (WCC)” (945). He criticizes the fact that historical depictions of modern ecumenism often begin very late and pass over the Alliance as well as a number of its earlier leading representatives as forerunners of the unity of Christians (21).

Lindemann sees the Alliance as a part of the transnational piety movement of revival after Pietism (25), which should not be judged sweepingly as ‘anti-Enlightenment’ or ‘anti-modern’ (25). Rather, with respect to questions of religious freedom or the fight against slavery, (28-29) it was also ahead of its time. Fed by revival in completely different languages and cultural circles, it, like Pietism, was marked “by a wide-ranging network of international contacts and ties” (33).

I dare doubt that one can truly trace the founding of ecumenical structures independent of the Alliance solely to the “increasing ‘fundamentalization’ of the 1880 Alliance” (945) in the form of the rejection of Biblical criticism and a turning towards the Holiness movement. This is what Lindemann rather incidentally mentions at the very end. I suspect that that just as exhaustive a work for the period after 1880 would likewise allow another ‘Alliance’ to emerge, which just as the Alliance which Lindemann depicts up to 1879 would not emerge from the popular cliché. Still, Lindemann is correct when he continues: “Nevertheless, the body of thought of the Alliance lives on in ecumenism” (946). The concluding words on the Evangelical Alliance of today, which imply a good early and a worse later and present day Alliance, do not fit all too well with the characteristic style of the book. However, after 945 exceedingly fair pages presenting the Alliance from various sources, one should take this restrained criticism to heart, particularly since the recommendations taken from it have in part already been put into practice.

On the whole, Lindemann writes from a friendly yet critical distance. Thus for instance he criticizes the close proximity of many Evangelicals to the ruling nobility at the time of the 1848/49 Revolution (152-158), whereby the Evangelicals did not differentiate themselves from the churches of their time.

He frequently helps to differentiate positive pictures. Thus already at the time of the founding of the Evangelical Alliance there was unity in the condemnation of slavery – the fight against slavery belonged unalterably to the history of ‘Evangelicals.’ However, the degree to which groups and individuals who tolerated slavery were allowed to become members was on this side and on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean a point of dispute (65-72, 110-129, 159). In 1846 they were all disinvited, later admitted in part, and then along with the abolition of slavery in the USA irrevocably banned (693). Never before have these complicated details been documented in detail.

There is also a lot of new material provided on the development of the statement of faith. “The understanding was one of an association of individuals. Also, in this connection, there was value placed on a personal decision of faith by each individual and an emphasis on the right of each individual’s reading of the Bible. The sharp boundary with Catholicism as well as high church groups in Protestantism, the sacraments, and the institutional church were viewed as objectively predefined entities, with the decision of the individual put first. By contrast, what counted for the Alliance in its ‘statement of faith’ adopted in London was a view of the divinely inspired Scriptures as sacrosanct, with their free examination, however, granted to each individual” (205).

The development of the first statement of faith is stirring (87-98). In my opinion it could have been more clearly pointed out that the first two sentences have produced a central tension up to the present day:
“1.The divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.
2. The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures“ (98).
On the one hand, this is an unalterable provision. On the other hand, it reflects an extreme pluralism, obligating each believer to interpret the foundation for himself.

Excursus: Evangelicals are marked by two opposite poles, and one does not do them justice if only one pole is observed.

On the one hand, there is the centrality of the Holy Scriptures inherited from Evangelicalism. On the other hand, there is individual salvation that arises from Luther’ question: “How do I get a gracious God?” It is a matter of each person’s having a personal relationship with God and there arising as a corrective to the centrality of the Scriptures the entitlement, even the obligation, of every Christian to study the Scriptures himself and to interpret them. The result is that such an individual stands on a level with every Evangelical theologian, no matter how learned, even if it is his pastor. Thus the Evangelical world unites dogmatic constriction, thanks to the position of the Bible, with an enormous democratic breadth, because every theologian is allowed to have a say.

The second tension is between missions and religious freedom. From the enormous emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus, what arose was a strong stress on the ‘duty to witness’ as well as a strong emphasis on religious freedom. The concept of voluntariness marks not only free churches. Rather, it also is marks intra-church pietism, for which faith should not be something that is only external, or inherited, but rather something which is personally experienced. But for all that, no one can be forced into it. Indeed, coercion destroys the possibility of accomplishing a truly independent, personal repentance before God. Thus rather a smaller church with convinced members than a large one with many members who belong only due to societal, family, or other pressures.

Redefinition of the Relationship of the Evangelical Alliance to the Catholic Church

Lindemann examines the anti-Catholic tendencies and activities in Great Britain in which the Alliance in part has its roots (45-50). Admittedly he also conclusively establishes what was my greatest ‘aha experience’ when reading the book: It was hardly the dogmatic differences which occupied center stage. Rather, the Alliance, with its advocacy of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, represented the complete opposite of the Ultramontanist Catholic Church, which decidedly rejected religious freedom. In part the Alliance had a radical, and in part a restrained, separation of church and state and of the primacy of voluntary personal conversion – something which excluded any sort of coercion in missions or religious coercion from the side of the state. The Catholic Church saw the state as a servant of the Church, at least in questions of religion and ethics. Local Catholics were seen to be bound more strongly than ever to the spiritual leadership, but also to the political leadership, of the pope. These were all positions which the Catholic Church first officially gave up in the Second Vatican Council but already after both world wars increasingly had to cut back. As in the culture war in Germany at the time of Bismark, when it was less a matter of the contents of faith and thus had more to do with the question of power and political influence of the church(es), in the center of the Alliance – according to Lindemann – there was the consideration that Ultramontanism was “a conspiracy against the spiritual development and spiritual freedom of humanity“ (49, 321-337).

From the founding year onwards, there was consistent advocacy for persecuted Catholics in Protestant countries and a lack of support of anti-Catholic governments for their actions (205). By the way, at the founding in 1846 no non-admission of Catholics was formulated (131). When the Allianz opposed Sweden with a delegation in 1858 after the highest royal court expelled six women from the country who had converted to Catholicism, by calling for religious freedom for these Catholics, there was throughout Europe a storm of outrage outside of the Alliance (295-300). The Alliance was then significantly involved in the Swedish Parliament’s 1860 abolishment of the penalties for leaving the Lutheran state church.

Lindemann writes: “Through their concentration on dogmatic and spiritual elements, the Alliance differentiated itself from other anti-Catholic groups. Furthermore, engagement for the Vaudoise free church made it clear that the association did not let itself be led by blind hatred of Catholics. Rather, it was able also to speak out against diplomatic and military support of governments which did not respect the principle of religious freedom, even when it found itself in conflict with Catholicism. In this connection Sir Culling Eardley made it clear that political freedom without religious freedom is unthinkable and also not worthy of being supported. According to the understanding of the London Alliance Committee, it was a matter of the ‘most holy of human rights’” (205-206).

“As early as the start-up phase of the Evangelical Alliance, it proved itself to be in no way a purely anti-Catholic movement. Priority was given to the interest in unity among Christians, while current events and developments were viewed more as triggering factors for the step to a Protestant affiliation. The evangelization of the world and the desire to contribute to peace among peoples through cooperation across borders, the latter above all from the American perspective, were considered to be fundamental objectives” (205).

New Chapters in the History of Religious Freedom

Lindemann shows the effort against persecution for religious reasons and religious freedom to be the main topic for the Alliance, which had never before been so thoroughly presented (in part. 141-151, 205-321, 592-645, 773-811, 858, 868-913). Especially interesting are the insights into the Alliance’s efforts for religious freedom, which Lindemann gained from the files of the ‘British Foreign and Commonwelth Office.’

Since the Alliance took advantage of the fact that foreign policy became the topic of the press and of the emerging parliament (207), efforts relating to those persecuted for religious reasons were in central focus from 1849 to 1858 (207).

Let us choose as an example the actions taken for the Italian Signor Giacinto Achilli (1803-1893), who converted from Catholicism to Protestantism, and who for that reason was incarcerated for life by the Roman Inquisition. In a diplomatic tug of war, which lasted almost one year and included the participation of British and French foreign ministers, the media, their newspapers, and numerous delegations, a trick by the French secured his freedom so that he could leave Rome and he handed over to England (208-223).

Matters such as these are repeatedly presented by Lindemann in minute detail. If these matters were known about at all, they had up to this point never been traced out in their individual steps. They document just how well organized, networked with governments and media, and ahead of its time this aspect of the Evangelical Alliance was.

Lindemann writes: “In their efforts for those disadvantaged due to reasons of belief, the Alliance clearly profited from increasing pluralism, above all the pluralism of British society and of the development of a broader media audience which allowed the exertion of influence by ‘pressure groups’ on the foreign policy decision process. It was soon noticed that in certain cases joint action beyond national borders appeared to promise more success, such as in the initial example of the Italian Giacinto Achilli where it was able to lead to joint governmental action. At the same time, reference to English public opinion was able to either deter states from the repression of people of other religions, end such repression, or, at least, to reduce it. It is not only through using new methods in this undertaking that the Evangelical Alliance had its part in the modernization process of Protestantism in the 19^th century” (943).

For instance, the British Alliance used a position paper sent to the Prussian king opposing persecution of Baptists to achieve the return of the Baptist leader Johann Gerhard Oncken to Berlin. He had earlier been driven out of Berlin (235-237). With letters from the British queen and the Prussian king, the Tuscan Grand Duke Leopold II was assailed in an audience on account of the incarceration of a married couple by the name of Madiai. “The deputation met with a strong response all across Europe” (254). And even the exigent Lutheran Ernst-Wilhelm Hengstenberg, who was truly no friend of the Alliance, praised the action, since it refuted the Catholic charge that the Protestants were hopelessly split. At this point one had spoken with a single voice (254). The affair spread as far as the USA, and other Italian princes likewise became active, as was the French emperor, until after a year the married couple was finally released in 1853. This makes it especially clear how closely tied the thought of ecumenism among Protestants and religious freedom were: Working together makes you stronger.

The extent of denominational generosity is also shown by the fact that there was a campaign before the Sultan not only for converts of Islam to Protestantism but also for the Greek Orthodox Church (300). The cause of Nestorians was supported in Iran (610-613).

After the execution of a convert in 1853, the Alliance, in cooperation with the Turkish Alliance, activated its contacts in a considerable number of European governments until finally in 1856 Sultan Abdülmecid I – surely in connection with the complicated politics between the Ottoman Empire and western powers – issued an edict granting greater freedoms to Protestants and abolishing the death penalty for conversion (300-319). In 1874-1875 a further large campaign was led by a delegation of the Alliance to the Turkish foreign minister, and by diplomats even all the way up to the sultan. However, their impact has been disputed (879-902).

Lindemann writes that the czar’s suspension of cases against pastors in the Baltic states was ”the responsibility of the push forward by the Alliance in London” (800). The deliberate confusion surrounding an attempt at a meeting with the czar, who finally sent his foreign minister ahead, is resolved by Lindemann (779-800).

The audiences which the Alliance had before the Prussian king, for instance in 1855 in Cologne or in 1857 within the framework of the Alliance’s Berlin Conference before Friedrich Wilhelm IV (286f), always revolved around freedom of religion in Germany. The same applies for conversations the secretary of the Alliance held with the German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm I and the Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1875 (919).

A deputation of the Alliance before Emperor Franz Joseph I at the Hofburg and subsequent conversations with the prime minister and the minister for education and the arts in 1879 led to noticeable relief for Protestants, and in 1880 even to their legal recognition as churches as well as almost incidentally to relief for free churches in Vienna (913).

The same applies to the visit by the entire group of participants from the New York Conference with the American President Ulysses S. Grant and his cabinet in 1873 (755-756), only that the American government no longer required convincing about freedom of religion.

If one considers that all this happened at a time when traditional churches were still very far from giving up their status as state churches, not to mention allowing religious freedom for all and still less demanding it. When religious freedom was called for at that time, it was mainly from Jews, religious minorities, and atheists, not, however, from very religious representatives of the prevailing religion. The contribution the Evangelical Alliance made to religious freedom in Germany has up to this time not been acknowledged anywhere.

Foundations

The 1853 Homburg Conference for Religious Freedom was a landmark in the history of the Alliance and for tolerance in Germany and Europe (263-267). The central result was the rejection of any use of ecclesiastical force against separatists and the rejection of utilizing any state power by churches against others (266) as a milestone in the development of the rights of religious freedom. Furthermore, this deliberately counted not only for Christians but rather for all religions. It naturally led to internal controversies and to sharp criticism from the side of Protestant state churches (267-272), but it did so without moving the Alliance away from its basic principle.

In 1861 a French pastor advanced a new thesis which gained more and more acceptance in the Alliance, namely that “religious freedom guarantees state order and its inherent peace” (592). Oppression of individual religious freedom, on the other hand, feeds revolution and strife and divests the state of its God-given foundation!

Interestingly enough, international academic investigation confirms precisely this: Religious freedom promotes a peaceful society, the oppression of religious freedom promotes unrest and violence, and practically all terrorist movements in the world which have a religious hue come from countries from the latter group [Brian J. Grim, Roger Finke. The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, with my commentary on this work available at http://www.thomasschirrmacher.info/archives/1792].

Lindemann writes: “With its commitment to religious freedom, the Alliance, the Anglo-American wing of which did not content itself with mere tolerance but saw public confession of faith as a fundamental right, has also in the establishment of freedoms in countries concerned rendered a notable service and made no insignificant contribution to the development of a civil society in Europe. Admittedly, in this area there were also conflicts with the British government which came about. With regard to India it was primarily the interest in controllability of the country and in the case of the Ottoman state it was particularly led by global strategic as well as by economic and trade interests. The latter began to increasingly influence British foreign policy beginning in the middle of the 19^th century. Furthermore, from the side of the government there were clearly demonstrable reservations about the Evangelical understanding of mission. On the other hand, the overall commitment of the Alliance proved to be congruent with the permanent global presence of Great Britain through the expansion of its points of contact and affiliated locations, all the way to Russia and Japan. In contrast to British foreign policy, there has been repeated meddling in European religious conflicts, while with the exception of the Italian agreement with respect to political tensions such as wars conducted by Prussia since 1864 restraint has been exercised analogously to the British government. On the other hand, an attitude has been pursued that ignores developments such as in the case of the Polish insurgence of 1863/64, which was in no way free from religious components” (943).

Bonner Querschnitte/Bonn Profiles (BQ): Is a new book against racism necessary?

Thomas Schirrmacher: 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. I wanted to redress this situation.

BQ: An Evangelical opposing racism?

Thomas Schirrmacher: Yes, naturally. The word “Evangelical“ was first used for a movement in Great Britain that called for the abolition of the slave trade and then of slavery. The movement finally achieved this under the leadership of William Wilberforce (1759-1833). Evangelicals played a central role in the anti-slavery movement in the USA, for instance free-church Quakers and Methodists. The best known book about it is the Evangelical classic, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In my book I quote a historian who demonstrates that racism had a greater chance in France and Germany due to the fact that there are few Evangelicals there. In the 18^th century, William Carey (1761-1834) fought the racism found in Christian churches in India under the caste system, and his language and cultural research led to the preservation of numerous Indian languages. Many view this British missionary and language researcher as the father of Evangelicals.

BQ: So everything is just history?

Thomas Schirrmacher: Nowadays the internationalization of the Evangelical movement means that racism does not have a chance. 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.

BQ: I can agree that this is the case on an international level, but in Germany?

Thomas Schirrmacher: In any event, it is a fact that the Pietists always had a better relationship to people of other cultures than the majority of the people around them. And Evangelicals in Germany have inherited that from the Pietists. The longtime leading German Evangelical missiologist Prof. Peter Beyerhaus wrote a small book in 1972 with the title Racism and Its Reasonable Evangelical Conquest (translated title of Der Rassismus und seine evangeliumsmäßige Überwindung). The Young Christians’ Offensive in Reichelsheim grew up during the time of its ecumenical struggle to overcome apartheid in South Africa – mind you, only with peaceful means. 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 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 have long since set the tone in many committees.

BQ: But what about Evangelicals in the USA?

Thomas Schirrmacher: When the Evangelical movement in the USA is criticized, a lot of people forget that there are not only ‘white’ Evangelicals. Rather, a lot of African-Americans have been and are Evangelicals, and today this additionally applies to Latinos and Asians. Unfortunately, in the USA there is a broad right-wing extremist spectrum that says that America is white, English-speaking, and Christian. The only thing is, that has little to do with Christian churches. And it is far removed from the National Association of Evangelicals and the US Evangelical Alliance.

BQ: But don’t Evangelicals view Islam very critically?

Thomas Schirrmacher: As a religion, yes, but they can still treat Muslims with dignity, can’t they? I would like to brazenly maintain that no German group of people is as often a guest of Turkish families as Evangelicals are or invite Turkish friends over as often as Evangelicals do.

BQ: What distinguishes racism from other forms of discrimination?

Thomas Schirrmacher: The core of racism in comparison to other ideologies that are used to oppress people (such as class, religious hatred, or disdain for the handicapped) is that what makes the other person different is allegedly in the individual’s biological ancestry and for that reason is unalterable. Racism has namely two core elements. It constructs ancestral groups with allegedly common features and evaluates these groups and differences for the ends sought by the racist. This occurs to the detriment of the victim, legitimizing privileges and aggression.

BQ: Constructs?

Thomas Schirrmacher: Yes. In my book I compile the growing number of arguments arising from investigations into different peoples and modern genetic research. For centuries there have been attempts to classify races, but the division mostly only convinced the researchers themselves who conducted the work. Something has been clear for a long time: there is only one human race.

BQ: Do you have a vivid example you can give me?

Thomas Schirrmacher: Yes, for sure. The same blood groups are found throughout all people groups. If you have blood type A, you had better not let a ‘white’ with blood type B donate blood to you. However, the blood of a ‘black,’ ‘yellow,’ or ‘red’ with your blood type can save your life. And a person with blood type O can be a so-called universal donor for any person on earth.

BQ: But can’t races be identified by their skin color?

Thomas Schirrmacher: If you take the time to study the history of classification according to skin color, you will quickly realize that it has little to do with the actual skin color. All the constructed color charts founder on reality’s diversity. ‘Yellows’ are often lighter than ‘whites,’ ‘reds’ are not red, but rather their spectrum of lighter to darker is found in other ‘races.’

BQ: What about the IQ tests in the USA which supposedly demonstrate that blacks on average are less gifted than whites?

Thomas Schirrmacher: If one takes IQ tests to be a measure, Jews and Japanese score about 10% higher than whites. However, one would rather keep that quiet. There are problems, however: 1. There are no culture-free IQ tests, no neutral, international intelligence. If you ask questions that relate to what is relevant for Eskimo children, Germans will always stand there and look like the dumb ones. 2. It is always only a question of averages. The same extreme spectrum is found in every group. It‘s just distributed differently. 3. Additionally, it is still an open issue as to where the differences come from. Do they lie in the educational system, in the family, or truly, as is alleged, in the genes?

BQ: How does one argue against racism?

Thomas Schirrmacher: One has to argue against racism on two levels. First, there is the argument that even a demonstrated difference among human races says nothing about the common dignity found among people. And secondly, no evidence can be produced to support the assumption that such biological differences between divisible races exist at all, much less that any such attempts at evidence would be in sympathy with the assumption. Actually the second point should suffice. Still, although it is the case that with every decade the scientific evidence increases that says there are no races, it is common up to the present day to continue to use the ancient and frequently refuted division according to skin color, for lack of an alternative. Leading encyclopedias explain under the ‘racism’ heading that there is no such thing as races, only to then nonchalantly continue to refer to the differentiation under the ‘race’ heading or the headings of these individual ‘races.’

BQ: What are the most frequent forms of racism?

Thomas Schirrmacher: There are three types of racism that are the most internationally widespread and can be tracked over the course of many centuries. They are directed against so-called ‘blacks’ or people with darker skin color, against Jews, and against so-called ‘gypsies,’ which is to say against the Sinti and Roma, and members of other gypsy-like peoples.

BQ: But aren’t there Germans and French and for that reason a Germany and a France?

Thomas Schirrmacher: We are all half-breeds with a long cultural history. We are the result of centuries of migration, especially Germans, the French or, for instance, the Turks. The French and Germans are culturally and historically distinguished from each other, but thirty generations back we are talking about the same ancestral mix. Charles the Great is seen as the progenitor of the French and the Germans, but for the longest time both sides acted as if there were two different people, the king of France and the emperor of the Germans.

BQ: Are you against right-wing extremism, then?

Thomas Schirrmacher: Yes, naturally. It is scientifically indefensible, ethically questionable, and it does not escape the scrutiny of human rights questions. But I do not want to make it too easy on myself. Racism is everywhere, not just in rightwing extremism, which places it in the center. A leftist can also go hunting for votes with racist language. Just think about Lafontaine’s comments regarding Polish workers in Germany, or think about the Marxist dictator Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Bibliography:

Thomas Schirrmacher. Racism – With an essay on Caste in India by Richard Howell. The WEA Global Issues Series 8. Verlag fuer Kultur und Wissenschaft / Culture and Science Publ.: Bonn, 2012.

For ordering go to www.vkwonline.de.

Downloads:

• The whole book (pdf)
• Cover (front) of the book (jpg)
• Cover (front and back) of the book (pdf)

The next blog will feature an interview by myself with the author available for reprint.

Downloads:

• The whole book (pdf)
• Cover (front) of the book (jpg)
• Cover (front and back) of the book (pdf)

Announcement from the World Evangelical Alliance

Are “white” people more intelligent than “black” people? Are Jews devious and grabby? Intolerance and violence through racism includes slavery, national socialism in Germany, apartheid in South Africa, or the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. “It might appear presumptuous to write in a way that ‘puts in a nutshell’ a phenomenon to which millions of people have fallen victim and which in the course of history has been used (…) to justify centuries of all sorts of human rights violations. (…) Still, it is only when one wants to grasp and refute racism ‘in a nutshell’ that the arguments against racism even have a chance”, says author and executive director of the IIRF, Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher.

The book is divided into three parts: Racism and its Refutation, where it speaks about various definitions of racism and the senselessness thereof, also citing important Bible passages which are directed against racism. In the second part “On the History of Racism and its Justification”, it introduces different kinds of theories that are based on racism and also illustrates genocide, listing examples from the recent past such as the Aborigines in Australia, the Armenians in Turkey, the genocide in Rwanda, and the Holocaust in Europe during World War II.

“I hope tears run down your face when you read both about the sin of racism as well as about the sinful theories people have taught,” Dr. Thomas K. Johnson, member of the Academic Council of the IIRF, writes in his preface to the book. “But our hope is that God’s Word, which we all must proclaim, will contribute something much more humane and godly to our many societies.”

The third part speaks about “the Situation in Germany” and its various facets, including the genocide of Gypsies, Anti-Semitism and National Socialism. In addition he outlines the situation of right-wing extremism in German speaking countries, including Switzerland and Austria, today.

“Thomas Schirrmacher’s short, serious book on racism richly illustrates the multifaceted relationship of God’s Word to our global social problems,” Dr. Johnson states.

But racism is not only wrong theologically, it is not only against the dignity of humans that guarantees their human rights, but newer genetic research also proves that the whole classification into races is without foundation. Schirrmacher writes: “In fact, everything that recent biology (in particular genetics) and cultural anthropology (including ethnology) have to say on the topic of race completely pulls the rug out from under racism.”

In an additional essay, Rev. Dr. Richard Howell, General Secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship of India and General Secretary of the Asian Evangelical Alliance, writes about the ‘Dehumanizing Caste System’, an Indian form of racism. “The caste system is based on the principle of discrimination and inequality. It is one of the most rigid and institutionalised brutalities of Hindu society,” he states. “While the agenda for political freedom of India from British rule was achieved in 1947, the freedom to emancipate the masses from perpetual exploitation and oppression remains to be won.”

“So read this book to learn, consider, weep bitterly, and then take action about racism. And along the way, notice the wide-ranging way in which the biblical message addresses all the problems of our broken world,” concludes Dr. Johnson.

Source: http://www.worldea.org/news/3892.

Report by proKOMPAKT

With his new book entitled Racism, the Evangelical scholar and author Thomas Schirrmacher seeks to clear up existing prejudices – something that is still an important exercise to conduct at the present time. Additionally, he is convinced: Evangelicals have always vehemently fought against racism.

At the core of racism is ‘otherness,’ writes Schirrmacher, and the belief that this otherness makes people superior or inferior. Nevertheless, the following becomes clear very quickly when reading his work: From a biological point of view racism is nonsense: “The results of modern genetics have unobjectionably demonstrated that there are no different human races, but rather that there is only one species of mankind.”

Schirrmacher also establishes with the aid of the Book of James in the New Testament that even “proven differences between human races say nothing about the equal dignity everyone has.” There one reads: “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 . . . Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom . . .” In accord with Christian tradition, the following is retained in the Charter of the United Nations: “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.”

ProKompakt: Evangelicals called for the Abolition of Slavery

In his conversation with pro, the author of the book “Racism”, Thomas Schirrmacher, emphasized the positive connection between the fight against racism and the Evangelical movement: “The word ‘Evangelical’ was first used for a movement in Great Britain that called for the abolition of the slave trade and then of slavery. The movement finally achieved this. Evangelicals played a central role in the anti-slavery movement in the USA, for instance free-church Quakers and Methodists. The best known book about it is the Evangelical classic, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. In my book I quote a historian who demonstrates that racism had a greater chance in France and Germany due to the fact that there are few Evangelicals there. In the 18^th century William Carey – many view this British missionary and language researcher as the father of Evangelicals – fought the racism found in Christian churches in India under the caste system, and his language and cultural research led to the preservation of numerous Indian languages.”

Nowadays the internationalization of the Evangelical movement means that racism does not have a chance. “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,” said 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 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 have long since set the tone in many committees.”

It is precisely the Evangelical movement in the USA that is frequently criticized on account of radical right wing views. In the process, many people forget that there are not only ‘white’ Evangelicals. Rather, a lot of African-Americans, Latinos, and Asians are Evangelicals. Unfortunately, there is a broad right-wing extremist spectrum in the USA that says that America is white, English-speaking, and Christian. However, that has little to do with Christian churches. Above all, Schirrmacher wrote his book to enlighten readers about racism – this is still important to do today. “Racism is such a seriously mistaken position that there simply cannot be enough written against it. You would surely 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’

The sociologist and theologian writes in his book 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 ‘blacks,’ Jews, and ‘gypsies,’ which in the latter case is to say against the Sinti and Roma. Schirrmacher has observed that it is simply nonsensical to speak about ‘racial differences.’ “If anyone in Central Europe wants to speak of some sort of race that has in any way been stable for millennia after all the ‘racial mixing’ that took place in the Roman Empire, subsequent migrations, campaigns of conquest from every direction, the invasion of mounted Asian troops, and immigration from all over the world, then the only explanation is that the wish is father to the thought. 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 of the Sociology of Religion at the State University of the West in Timisoara, 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.

Source of German original: proKOMPAKT 28/2009 pp. 17-18 (http://www.pro-medienmagazin.de/buecher.html?&news[action]=detail&news[id]=15)

© Langham Partnership

2000 invited guests from all over the world attended the “Service of Thanksgiving for the Life of John W. Stott” in London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral. I never saw so many Anglican and other bishops attending the farewell service of a simple priest. It was one of the most impressive services I ever visited and “The Cross” – the title of Stott’s major work, stood in the center of it.

Says S. Douglas Birdsall, chair of the Lausanne Movement: „I travelled to London this week from my home in Boston, US, for the memorial service for John Stott. The Apostle Paul was his mentor, through the pages of scripture, so St Paul’s Cathedral had a symbolic ring as a choice of venue. Stott shared with the Apostle both a sharp intellect and a deep and driven passion for the Christian gospel.” (see more of him here: http://www.lausanne.org/en/blog/1757-portrait-of-a-christian-leader.html).

The service sheet included tributes by Billy Graham, the chairman and the international director of The Lausanne Movement, S. Douglas Birdsall and Lindsay Brown, and the Secretary General of WEA and the Chair of the Theological Commission of WEA Geoff Tunnicliffe and Thomas Schirrmacher.

Download: WEA contribution

Download: Full service sheet

See also my tribute to John Stott here.

Reports on the service

Official report by Chris Wright, International Director, Langahm Partnership:
website: http://www.johnstottministries.org/news/264
as file: http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/resources/press/stpauls-press-release.doc

British Alliance: http://www.eauk.org/articles/john-stott-memorial-service.cfm

Speeches: http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/media/

Youtube:

http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/media/

On John Stott:

http://www.eauk.org/articles/the-world-pays-tribute-to-john-stott.cfm

http://www.johnstottmemorial.org/media-resources/

© Thomas Schirrmacher

Press release by the Evangelical Alliance of the United Kingdom

Hundreds packed out St Paul’s Cathedral in the heart of the city of London on Friday to celebrate the life of John Stott – one of the 20th century’s leading evangelical thinkers – who died in July, aged 90.

Staff from the Evangelical Alliance, including General Director Steve Clifford, were among 2,000 people who joined Rev Stott’s closest friends and colleagues, as well as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London, at the memorial service.

In a touching event including music from the All Souls Orchestra and tributes by Christians from across the globe, the congregation heard how many lives had been touched by the teaching, writing and friendship of the man affectionately known as ‘Uncle John’.

Opening the service, Canon Mark Oakley of St Paul’s said: “We come to this cathedral church today to give thanks for the life of a humble and faithful servant of Jesus Christ. We remember with joy and thanksgiving John Robert Walmsley Stott, a minister of the gospel, beloved pastor, Bible scholar, mentor and friend.

“His simple life of study and prayer, preaching, writing and discipling, helped shape the face of a 20th century evangelical faith in Britain and around the world. He was valiant for truth, even when that was unfashionable, and single-minded as he laboured to fulfil the Lord’s call upon his life.

“John eschewed public accolades and ecclesiastical preferment and would be embarrassed by any service that dwelt on him or his achievements rather than pointing to his Saviour, crucified, risen and ascended.”

Reflecting on the service, Steve Clifford said: “John Stott lived his life simply as a follower of Christ. The celebration at St Paul’s Cathedral gathered the Christian community from right around the world.

“We may never know the full impact of his life through his writing and preaching but when the history of evangelicalism in the past century has been written, John Stott will be recognised as a giant of the faith.”

Born in 1921 in London, John Stott was a member of All Souls Church, Langham Place, all his life. Among his most celebrated writings were Basic Christianity and The Radical Disciple. He served as one of the Queen’s Chaplains and was awarded a CBE in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list in 2005 – the same year he was named in Time magazine’s top 100 most influential people.

Despite his accolades and influence, those who knew him described his humility and his dedication to seeing Jesus glorified above all else – both in the Church and society as a whole.

Rene Padilla, founder of The Kairos Centre, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, said: “There is no exaggeration… in my” saying that the aspect of John’s legacy that I treasure more than anything else is his Christian character. He was a man who could say with the apostle Paul, without any hesitation: ‘Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ’. I am not surprised that the very last book John wrote was The Radical Disciple. That is what he was: a radical disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, a disciple who in his character and lifestyle embodied God’s purpose for human life.”

Paying tribute, Geoff Tunnicliffe, secretary general of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), said: “Although many of the 600 million evangelical Christians may never have heard of John Stott, almost without exception they will have been unconsciously influenced through what they or their pastors have read from his pen. The whole of the leadership of the WEA acknowledges with great thankfulness to God the legacy that John Stott has left behind to encourage and guide us.”

Thomas Schirrmacher, Chair of the Theological Commission of WEA added: “I hope that the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance can maintain these high standards for the future and carry on Stott’s theological heritage into the future of the evangelical movement.”

© Kieran Dodds

Chris Wright: Memorial and Thanksgiving Service for John Stott St Pauls’s Cathedral, 13^th January 2012

A life that still speaks; a vision that inspires.

The majestic stone columns and arches of St. Paul’s Cathedral glowed in the honeyed light of the winter sunshine, while Christopher Wren’s great dome resounded to the music of organ, orchestra, choir and two thousand voices giving glory to God in thanksgiving for the life and ministry of Rev Dr John R. W. Stott (1921-2011). The service was held on Friday January 13^th, 2012 and drew people from the corners of the UK and many parts of the world.

Music for the service was led and arranged by Dr Noel Tredinnick with the All Souls Orchestra and a gathered choir, along with soloist Elisabeth Crocker. The hymns, some of which were chosen in advance by John Stott, included ‘Sing to God new songs of worship’, written by Bishop Michael Baughen who presided, and ‘Lord for the years’, written by Bishop Timothy Dudley-Smith, who preached. The service opened with a welcome and bidding by Canon Mark Oakley, Canon in Residence at St. Paul’s.

Tributes began with Frances Whitehead, John Stott’s secretary for 55 years, who was converted to Christ through his preaching and thanked God for his life – marked to its very end by faith, hope and love, along with grace and truth. Stott’s global influenced was recognized in tributes brought from Asia, Africa and Latin America by, respectively, Archbishop John Chew (Singapore), Bishop Robert Aboagye-Mensah (Ghana), and Ruth Padilla DeBorst (Costa Rica). All spoke of the influence in their continents of his life and friendship, as well as his teaching. Ruth Padilla DeBorst stressed how Stott had listened so deeply to his friends and allowed the realities of poverty and injustice in Latin America to stretch, challenge and inform his own worldview and his understanding of the scope of gospel mission.

In his sermon, Timothy Dudley-Smith, one of Stott’s oldest friends since their student days at Cambridge, preached from Revelation 17:14, where those who are with Jesus are described as ‘Called, chosen and faithful’ – words that he illustrated from Stott’s life, while challenging all present to answer the question that Stott himself would ask, ‘How is it between you and Jesus?’ He recalled John’s sermon at the re-opening of All Souls church in which he had said he ‘dreamed’, among other things, of a serving church that would be salt and light in society.

That theme was picked up by Mark Greene and Chris Wright who presented the ongoing vision that is embodied in the two organizations that they lead and which, at Stott’s request, will benefit jointly from The John Stott Memorial Fund – respectively, the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity and the Langham Partnership International. Greene pointed to Stott’s passion that lay Christians should be the agents of the gospel’s transforming power in the frontlines of their places of work, but lamented that this part of Stott’s vision had not been truly grasped or implemented in whole-life disciple-making. As a result, even though there are more Christians in the City of London than in the tents outside the Cathedral, the salt had not been doing its job. Wright pointed to Stott’s complementary passion that, for Christians to be such transformative salt and light in the world, they need the nourishment of applied Bible preaching by pastors who are committed and trained to provide it.

Prayers of thanksgiving after the tributes were led by Bishop Michael Baughen, and prayers of commitment after the sermon and ongoing vision were led by Judge David Turner. Closing prayers were led by John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, and Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, and the blessing was pronounced by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

As the echoes of the last lines of the final hymn resounded among the sunlit stone vaults of the vast Cathedral spaces — ‘Past put behind us, for the future take us / Lord of the years, to live for Christ alone’ –  two hundred and fifty miles away another stone stands surrounded only by the music of the sea and sky. A gravestone of rough-hewn Welsh slate now marks the spot in the tiny village cemetery of Dale, Pembrokeshire, Wales, where John Stott’s ashes lie buried. Like the man himself – slender, upright, rooted in the earth but pointing to the heavens – it is inscribed with his own words:

Buried here are the ashes of John R. W. Stott …
who resolved both as the ground of his salvation
and as the subject of his ministry
to know nothing except
Jesus Christ and him crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:2

Chris Wright, International Director, Langham Partnership International

(Cape Town/Bonn, Bonner Querschnitte News 196 – No. 02/2012) The International Journal for Religious Freedom (IJRF) has been included in the “Approved list of South African journals” effective as from 1 January 2012.

Prof. Dr. Christof Sauer as the editor in chief of the journal reports: “The Department of Higher Education and Training of the South African government, which administers this list, has just communicated the acceptance of IJRF on this list. We have been striving for this sought after accreditation since the founding of the journal in 2008. The criteria are very stringent and it is difficult to obtain”.

“In South Africa the recognition of a scholarly journal by the government is crucial for the status of a journal”, Sauer explains. “State subsidies for universities are partly based on the number of articles published by its academics in approved journals. So South African scholars usually prefer to publish in accredited journals.”

The issues of the IJRF were assessed by both the government department and the Academy of Science in South Africa (ASSAf) according to the National Code of Best Practice in Editorial Discretion and Peer Review for South African Scholarly Journals.

The IJRF aims to provide a platform for scholarly discourse on religious freedom in general, and the persecution of Christians in particular. The IJRF is an interdisciplinary, international, peer reviewed journal, serving the dissemination of new research on religious freedom and is envisaged to become a premier  publishing location for research articles, documentation, book reviews, academic news and other relevant items on the issue.

The IJRF which appears twice a year is published by the International Institute for Religious Freedom (Bonn – Cape Town – Colombo) of the World Evangelical Alliance. The editors are Prof. Dr Christof Sauer (Cape Town) and Prof. Dr Dr Thomas Schirrmacher (Bonn). Prof. Stephen Baskerville (Washington D.C.) is currently the managing editor.

The journal is available for subscription as a print version and made freely available online with a delay on 1 March and 1 September respectively (www.iirf.eu). The IJRF is also included in the portfolio of the provider of electronic journals for libraries, SABINET.

A recent issue on “Advocacy and Law” was widely distributed on 4 continents by Advocates International and a number of other sponsors. The latest issue deals with “Religion and Civil Society”.

Nazila Ghanea (ed.). Religion and human rights. 4 volumes. New York: Routledge, 2010, 1600 p., ISBN 978-0415477871, US$ 1075.00.

The academic publisher Routledge publishes sets, usually of four volumes, with a reprint of a wide range of older and recent articles and book chapters, always edited by a well known scholar and expert on a specific subject (the ‘Major Works Collection’), a dozen of them so far in the area of religions (‘Critical Concepts in Religious Studies’). Those sets are not meant for the wider public, but mainly for libraries and specialists, who want material scattered around the globe and in dozens of publications, as the price of the set is usually above $1000.

One could say, that the title “Religion and human rights“ is wrong. In the only human rights discussed in the volumes is the “Freedom of religion and belief“ and all essays circle aorund this human right. Under the title “Religion and human rights“ one would exspect a larger range of topics.

The editor of the volume on the topic of religious freedom has been chosen well, as Nazila Ghanea is Editor in Chief of the Journal of Religion and Human Rights and Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at Oxford’s Kellogg College. She also initiated and now serves on the Executive Board of the international network ‘Focus on Freedom of Religion or Belief’ (FoFoRB).

Of course a selection of 55 essays, articles and book chapters can always be discussed. Why is there only one historic article (by John Locke from 1640), one from 1974, and all others from 1984 or later? And is the essay by Locke really the most important one before 1974? Why are articles excluded that are just of regional interest or focus on just one religion? And why, then, is an article with the subtitle “Should the United States provide refuge to German scientologists” included, though it does not feature an outcome or principle of international interest, concluding in 1999, that scientologists in Germany “suffer mainly economic disadvantages”, but to describe their present situation “as persecutory … seems exaggerated”? Why is the 1984 article “Parental rights and the religious upbringing of children” by T. H. McLaughlin included? It is more philosophical than religious, arguing for “a non-indoctrinary form of religious upbringing which a liberal can in good conscience claim”, and it is more a private opinion piece on how to raise children than a needed discussion of the application parental rights (part of UN’s standards of religious freedom) and when they have to be overruled, and what this means for education and schooling.

But overall the selection is superb. Highlights on religious freedom, which immediately came to my mind, are included, eg Brice Dickson’s “The United Nations and freedom of religion” (1995), the editor’s “Apostasy and freedom to change religion or belief” (2004), David Keane’s “Why the Hindu caste system presents a new challenge for human rights” (2007), “Models of religion-state religions” from the book by Rex Adhar and Ian Leigh (2005) and the superb “Draft model law in freedom of religion” by Dinah Shelton and Alexandre Kiss (1996). Wherever freedom of religion and belief is studied and these volumes are at hand, students do not need to look for other articles to get started. It is an ideal tool for seminars in universities for a wide range of subjects studied, including law, comparative religions or sociology.

Appendix: Topics of the four volumes: Volume I: Why protect freedom of religion or belief? Volume II: Is freedom of religion or belief an individual or collective human right? Group, collective, and corporate rights. Models for protection of religion or belief. Minority rights. Refugee rights. Volume III: Conflict of rights and freedom of religion or belief in general: On conflict of rights with freedom of religion or belief. Freedom of expression. Women’s rights. Child rights. Volume IV: International standards, persecution and ways forward. International standards and mechanisms regarding freedom of religion or belief. Persecution and discrimination. Equality, differential treatment, special rights, positive duties, and freedom of religion or belief. Ways forward.

Today, we are gathered here to launch this historic document, an outcome of the intense and extensive  process of five years of our collective efforts come to an end, but it will also open a new process to carry out this message in our respective constituencies in the coming days and years. As a person who has been part of the process from the early stage, let me take this opportunity to give you an overview of this process.

The question of conversion emerged as one issue to be discussed on a worldwide scale during a major interreligious event, the „Critical Moment Interreligious Conference“ organized by the WCC June [6-9,] 2005 in Geneva. There was a proposal at that time for the WCC which needed to be much clearer on the question of religious conversion as an  issue in interreligious relations.

Hans Ucko, director of WCC’s Office on „Interreligious Relations and Dialogue“, brought the idea up in one of the yearly staff meetings between PCID and IRRD. The end result was that the two offices initiated a project entitled “Interreligious Reflection on Conversion – From Controversy to a Shared Code of Conduct”. The project was made up of three major consultations, about double as many smaller meetings of staff and experts (mostly called the „drafting committee“) and an ongoing virtual discussion that later on included many Christian leaders worldwide, that were asked of their evaluation of the draft.

The first consultation “Conversion: Assessing the Reality” met at Lariano, Italy, May [12-16,] 2006 and wanted to map the problems and thus was an interreligious meeting. 27 people, representing Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and the Yoruba religion agreed that a code of conduct for propagating one’s own faith should be achieved. They stated: „We affirm that while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s rights and religious sensibilities.” (Report Lariano 2006, no. 3)

After Lariano 2006 I was invited by the WCC as an expert on this particular issue to a small meeting convened by the WCC in Geneva. It was at that meeting when Hans Ucko on behalf of the WCC, in agreement with Felix Machado of the PCID, invited the World Evangelical Alliance to become part of the process. Most of their staff were connected to the WEA’s Religious Liberty Commission and later the Theological Commission, but it was run directly under WEA’s Director and International Council from the very beginning.

The second 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. It was here that the necessity of specific recommendations was discussed in length and the topics were set out, that had to be addressed in a “code”, as it was still called at that time. The idea would be that Christians first of all find a code of conduct among themselves in their relationships to other religions. If even Christians would not agree amongst each other on a peaceful way for their witness that respects the human dignity and rights of others, how could they expect an agreement with all religions?

After Toulouse, a drafting 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. In groups and in plenary the text was discussed line by line. There were so many fine and valuable contributions, that we ran out of time. It was amazing, how suddenly the text finally proposed was seen as much better than the one we started with, both by the participants and the institutions involved. It no longer was a text with a lot of single thoughts, plus one flowing from the first sentence to the last, as you will see when reading it.

After Bangkok, only very minor changes were agreed upon between PCID, WCC and WEA.

During the period of the process of drafting and finalising the document over a period of five years, there were many changes in staff and leadership in PCID as well as in WCC. The process went on anyway. This proves that the project, that has come to an end today, is not just a project bound to certain people, but a joint need of the whole Christian community and a great achievement of institutions working together over time.

These pictures show the Great Hall of the World Council of Churches while publishing the code, Schirrmacher is speaking, from left to right: Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata (Sekretary, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID)), Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran (President, PCID), Dr. Olav Fykse Tveit (General Secretary, World Council of Churches), Dr. Geoff Tunicliffe (General Secretary, World Evangelical Alliance (WEA)), Monsignor Andrew Vissanu Thanya-Anan (Under Secretary, PCID), Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher (Chairman, Theological Commission and Speaker for Human Rights, WEA). Fotos by courtesy of WCC-Media.

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