Only when mankind subordinates himself to God does he, as the crown of creation, do justice to his responsibility for the creation. Whoever deifies the creation (nature, the environment) or whoever puts mankind on a par with the creation in a New Age manner, has no basis for his alleged responsibility. In the future we will not have to answer before our grandchildren but rather before God.

Additional information:

• Environmental Ethics – Christianity Is Not the Root of the Ecological Crisis?
• The entire issue is available here as a pdf file.

My earlier articles in Lausanne World Pulse on the topic of the persecution of Christians:

• ”Persecution and Mission.“ Lausanne World Pulse (Wheaton/IL). November 2008: 8-11.
• ”Persecution (Modern Ages).“ Lausanne World Pulse (Wheaton/IL). November 2008: 11-15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The most frequent Cause of Death worldwide

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

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

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

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

The German constitution “commits itself” to human rights, and the preamble of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 speaks of “recognition” and even of “faith” when it says: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women.” Similar formulations, which presuppose the recognition of a prescribed, manifest and incontrovertible truth, are found in many human rights and constitutional texts, according to Hoye. German state constitutions speak of “esteeming” the “truth” and of an “attitude.” In the Constitution of Bremen (Article 26.3) mention is made of “education towards esteeming truth” and in the Constitution of the Rhineland Palatinate of “a freely democratic attitude” (Article 33).

The thought that all people should share truth (Hoye, ibid., p. 39) is inherent to democracy. This is due to the fact that “unlike all other political systems, democracy is, in its essence, not reliant upon philosophical thought” (ibid., p. 53).  Even if the least democratic systems seek to impose their structure upon other countries, democracy is a strongly missionary model that by no means is based on randomly gained votes but rather on final truths. And if a person scrutinizes these final truths, that individual is ‘undemocratic.’ One can see with what sort of final commitment the superiority of democracies is presented by politicians, how the word ‘democratic’ is treated as the ultimate mark of quality, or for instance how radically Muslims are called upon to subordinate to the constitution.

Does not the erection of an international court for genocide, before which heads of state have to answer, amount to a situation where there is an ethic that transcends all countries and all positive law? Is there not too little discussion about whether from a secular point of view there is just as much a presupposed comprehensive and universal ethos as there is from religious standpoints? Is not the secular point of view similar to what Christianity has known with the Torah from Judaism or what was once known as prevailing natural law? Or what Islam has known with the Sharia in a much more concrete model and with a completely different meaning? And wouldn’t such a global ethic need to be as much subject to an intensive discussion about its final justification as Christianity has been subject to in its history? Do not many hide their lack of a final justification behind the pretext that they alone want to avoid arguing religiously or even fundamentally?

People often behave as if religions, with their truth claims, are per se not capable of being democratic and are subordinate the state to their own truths. However, is it really any different with secular humanism – if one were to contrast these opposite poles rather boldly and simply? Is not the dispute all too often one of the respective final truths held by both sides, that is, which ones should bind the state with respect to human rights?

Does not German and European law correctly place religious and non-religious world views on one plane when it comes to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Does that not also mean at the same time that non-religious world views are just as lacking in neutrality as religions and should be so honestly described, as far as what they have as final, non-scrutinized foundations? In everyday life as well as in the academic world it has been observed for a long time that non-religious people – on account of their non-religiosity – are automatically viewed as more neutral, more committed to truth, and more rational, and who do not even have to disclose their foundations of thinking, while religious people have the buck passed to them for being narrow-minded and biased. How fair, rational, and capable of dialog someone is, and how much he or she is committed to true research, is not to be found in whether the individual is religious or not.

Let us take the example of the admissibility of abortion. Both sides argue with rights that transcend the state, if for the moment we overlook the large spectrum that seeks a compromise. The magisterium of the Catholic Church and the large majority of the Evangelical movement view unborn children as individuals with full human dignity and do not grant the state the right to infringe upon this human life (the classical presentation is found in Defending Life. A moral and legal Case against Abortion Choice, Cambridge 2007 by the Evangelical who converted to Catholicism, Francis J. Beckwith). The state is actually measured by religious truth which, however, according to the understanding of its proponents, should actually be understandable to every reasonable individual.

However, its opponents do not only refer to positive law which rests upon the parliamentary majority decision in favor of the freedom to abort. Otherwise, they would have to accept that in Ireland, Poland, or in many non-western countries it is just as legal on the basis of laws based on decisions made according to parliamentary procedure or by referendums that abortion is not permissible. Here they argue with rights for all individuals that transcend the state, such as the right of the woman to choose, or directly with a human right to abortion. To a degree, both sides measure the state in a fundamentalist manner on rights they will not give up or that bind democracies with ‘eternal’ values. They assume furthermore that there are some who do not want to understood these values in spite of all reason.

Alternatively, let us take the cultural war raging in California around the introduction of marriage for homosexuals and the current vote under the catchword  “Proposition 8.” Surely there is a coalition of people unwilling to compromise – both religious (primarily Catholics, Latinos, Mormons, and a portion of Evangelicals) and non-religious (otherwise there would not be such majorities!) – who are against the introduction of such a measure, but their opponents are just as unwilling to compromise and are fighting at the level of final truths. It does not matter to the one that a vote in November 2008 showed that 52% were against the introduction of homosexual marriage: Nor does it matter what the state legislature or judges decided. Rather, democratic mechanisms are for both sides the tools used to implement their own truth, which in a certain sense lie ‘fundamentalistically’ above the state. Democracy can often produce a balance between ‘truth’ and interests, but sometimes the verdict comes only through the decision of the majority or even only arises on the basis of randomly available mechanisms (the mode of voting, referendum, validity of court decisions).

In the final event, democracy does not, however, get along without binding itself to such higher values. Democracy is not an end in itself. It can conspicuously use its own mechanisms to vote itself out of office. Only if and when democracy is able to better ensure higher values such as the dignity of man, the constitutional state, minority protection, justice, or social state procedure is it in a position to be superior to all other states forms. For instance, how would a democracy practice the protection of minorities if the opinion of the majority and of the voting majority were holy and incontrovertible?

It would be better if all proponents of democracy would lay out in the open which values and truths are highest and which ones democracy should defend. This is preferable to a situation where some individuals act as if they were neutral while really only wanting to impose their truths of democracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several theses underscore this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Caricature

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

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

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

Ethics as Sanctification

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

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

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

Evangelicals‘ Social Ethics

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

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

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

Evangelicals on the Right and Left

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and Weaknesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have the opportunity to continue this dialog (my presentation can be found here) before international guests on June 3, 2009 (2:30 – 4:00 pm) in the former BT Chamber, Room C in Bonn at the Deutsche Welle’s Second Global Media Forum (www.dw-gmf.de). The topic is: “The Mutual Responsibility of the Armed Forces and Civil Society.”

Upon this occasion I would like to quote from the Strausberg Report (available in complete form here):

The German Army requires Ethicists!
Protestant Ethicists call upon colleagues to support the German Army in its concept of ‘internal leadership’

(Bonn April 24, 2009) The ethicist Thomas Schirrmacher, resident in Bonn, has called upon ethicists and social ethicists to heighten their support of efforts made by the German Army with respect to ethical training. A good tradition of the Federal Republic of Germany is that the parliamentary army is in constant dialog with the civil society, and one in which Christian as well as non-Christian ethicists belong.

Schirrmacher spoke in the framework of a “Security Policy Think Tank Roundtable” on the “Implementation of ethical Training and Advanced Education,” which took place in the German Army Academy for Information and Communication in Strausberg in the state of Brandenburg.

Schirrmacher accused many of his colleagues of occupying themselves too little with ethical questions within the army and for an army in action. It is naturally correct to occupy oneself generally with ethics in peacetime. However, it is in the everyday activities of the Germany army in its foreign deployments that it is decided how much our democracy differentiates itself from countries which simply utilize the military to accomplish its political goals.

A democratic parliamentary army begins with one of the largest ethical dilemmas that there is, one with which many do not want to get their hands dirty. This applies equally to theologians as well as to politicians. The protection of life and the prohibition against killing is one of the highest values that is known in our constitution and which (almost) all citizens share instinctively. Since there are, however, people on earth – countries as well as armies for civil war and terrorists who are ready to kill or already do kill, someone has to be prepared to potentially risk his or her life or if necessary to even end the life of the attacker. Without this dilemma we would not need an army, and an army would only be employed at that point where a threat to life is real – otherwise, for instance, the Red Cross would be sufficient in Afghanistan.

The monopoly on force which is in the hands of the state, according to Schirrmacher, only allows the state to rightfully maintain an army. There have admittedly been many war mongering armies in history which were contemptuous of human life. A rightfully maintained army can only be differentiated from a war mongering army if political and internal military orientation and structures ensure human rights protection and the goal of freedom.

According to Schirrmacher’s opinion, ethicists – Christians as well as others – may not be allowed to leave the German army out in the cold, and neither may politicians, who disguise highly dangerous operations as peace missions or humanitarian operations and do so in order to present before the public the appearance of not being a participant in a war.

In theory the German Army, with its concept of ‘internal leadership,’ has again confirmed through its Central Service Regulations 10/01 that globally it has the best prerequisites. Now it is left for these ambitious goals to be thought through, communicated, and put into practice.

As a representative of the military, Dr. Edwin Micewski of the Austrian Federal Army also spoke in addition to Schirrmacher at the Security Policy Think Tank Roundtable. Micewski teaches ethics at the Austrian Military Academy as well as at universities in the USA. Although in contrast to Schirrmacher he does not refer back to Christian ethics, but rather a deontology reminiscent of the Kantian tradition, he came to the same result relative to the initial dilemma that an army faces. He also calls for not putting a positive spin on this problem, but rather to pay particular attention to offering support to soldiers and officers in overcoming these problems.

Additional information:

• >Bonner Querschnitte 12/2009 – Issue 96 (in German)
• Photo download: Prof. Schirrmacher and Dr. Micewski at the German Army Military Academy in Strausberg