ArchiveEvangelicals

Deification in Christian Theology (Review)

(A much shorter and edited version of this review will be published in ‘Evangelical Review of Theology’)

Stephan Finlan, Vladimir Kharlamov (ed.), Deification in Christian Theology (Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2010) 194 pp. ISBN: 9780227173299. $42.50

Deification is the transformation of believers into the likeness of God. While Christian monotheism does not support the notion of any literally becoming “god,” the New Testament speaks of a transformation of mind, character, vision and mission towards those of Jesus and an imitation of God. However, those passages do not spell out the concept in detail.

The idea was often mentioned in the early Church, but it took a long time until the term “deification” (“theosis”, Θεωσις) was coined by Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century and became the label for the concept. Though the term has taken many meanings in church history, it is now used to designate all instances where any idea of taking on God’s character or being made divine occurs.

In the Orthodox Churches, the Old Oriental Churches, and the Oriental Churches in Union with the Roman Catholic Church, the term plays a central role as salvation from an unholy life to partaking in the holy life of God himself. For the Orthodox, theosis is the process of a believer becoming free of sin (in the general meaning), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the bodily resurrection. Humans were made to share in the life of the holy Trinity. This transformation is part of salvation and ends in everlasting life (zōé).

The Oriental concept of deification has often fallen prey to fights betwenn the Christian confessions as they were accused of believing that humans could become God. As the editors see it, the debate went forth and back between deification as an heathen idea (as proposed by Adolf Harnack) and an essential and indubitable Orthodox doctrine (p. 9). They want to get beyond this static warfare. And one has to agree. Theosis never meant to become God or to become like God in every aspect or to give up the distinction between creator and creation, including man as a created being. (See the leading Romanian theologian Dumitru Staniloae, who emphasizes that “theosis” may not be taken literally, p. 161.)

Two Orthodox theologians edited this volume to examine the history of the concept and invited authors from other confessions to be involved. Stephen Finlan is a research assistant on the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture at Drew University and Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University. Vlandimir Kharlamov teaches at Fairleigh Dickinson University and works as a research assistant on the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture at Drew.

Besides the introduction by the editors, there are chapters on Judaism and the Old Testament (Gregory Glazov), on 2 Peter 1:4 (Stephen Finlan), on the Apostolic Fathers and on the Apologists of the Second Century (both by Vladimir Kharlamov), on Irenaeus and on Athanasius (both by Jeffrey Finch), on Augustine (Robert Puchniak), on Maximus the Confessor (Elena Vishnevskaya), on Soloviev (Stephen Finlan) and “Reforming Theosis,” a chapter by a Reformed scholar evaluating the concept of deification (Myk Habets).

It is not always clear whether this book is primarily historical research or primarily an Orthodox defense of the concept to other churches. One could wish for an essay on the history of the criticism of the concept and a clearer presentation of the possible differences between Orthodox and classic Reformation soteriology in regard to theosis. To be clear, I think that it is worth studying the subject and that Protestants or Evangelicals need to take into account the relevant biblical texts. But getting closer to each other is only possible by starting with clearly stating the possible obstacles and then working our way through the Bible, its interpretation in the early church, and in all of church history.

For Evangelicals, exegesis will play a major role in evaluating the concept and this volume is a good starting point. Clearly, there are enough NT texts to be explained that one cannot omit the topic. The question cannot be if we should deny becoming “participants of the divine nature,” but only how to interpret this in the light of all of Scripture. I agree with the following list:

Taking on God’s nature (2Pet 1:4, Ps 82:6, John 10:34),
imitation of God (Mt 5:48, John 14:12, Eph 5,1),
indwelt by God (Job 32:8, John 14:17, Rom 8:16),
being re-formed by God (John 3,:6; Rom 12,2, Eph 4,24),
being con-formed to Christ (Phil 3:21, Rom 8,29, 2Cor 3:18, 1John 3:2),
final divinization of the kosmos (Hab 2:14, Isa 32:17, 1Cor 15:28).

The OT has to be added. Gregory Glazov examines Old Testament covenant theology, divine adoption, and on bearing the fruit of knowledge or attaining the stature of a tree of righteousness in Proverbs, Isaiah, and Sirach, as foundations for the NT teaching on theosis.

Since all the articles are well researched and shed new light on the whole debate, I want to confine myself to two remarks and then concentrate on the article by Habtes. Otherwise I agree with Evangelical theologian Thomas C. Oden, connected to the editors as General Editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, who writes: “An extraordinary collaboration of scholars examining the neglected theme of deification in the classic Christian tradition from its biblical roots through Irenaeus, Augustine, and Maximus, to contemporary reconstructions of Torrance and Soloviev.”

1. I do not really understand why the article on Vladimir Soloviev was included. The Bible and the Early Church are given, but a modern poet of comedy? At least I would have made it an appendix or provided an explanation.
2. Finlan takes it for granted that 2Peter was written around 100 n. Chr. (p. 32) and in-terprets 2Peter on this backround. This surely is not in line with the thinking of the Church Fathers or traditional theology on which so much emphasis is laid in this volume. This idea is an inroad from liberal Protestantism, which is criticised by a growing community of NT scholars. There are good arguments that the letter was written prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the idea from the 19th century, that the letter does not reflect the thought of Peter, but comes from a pupil of Paul (p. 43-45), and therefore has to be late, should not be binding on us in light of the fact, that the evidence is still missing. Finlan’s belief that 2Peter borrows from Middle Platonic spirituality, from Stoic ethics, and from Jewish apocalyptic expectation, will not help to further his idea among Evangelicals. It is a pity when Orthodox theologians copy liberal theology even at places where it hits the essence of their faith. More conservative commentaries on 2Peter would give much more strength to understanding and applying 2Peter 1:4.

An exception among the authors is the Reformed theologian Myk Habets, both as a Protestant and because his topic is to compare an Orthodox teaching with Reformed theology. He compares theosis to the “heart of Reformed theology,“ union with Christ, which “is compatible with a doctrine of theosis” (p. 147). Calvin’s comment on 2Peter 1:4, in the view of Habets, could have been written by an Orthodox theologian (p. 148). Calvin’s emphasis on union with Christ (pp. 148-150) is very similar to the Orthodox position and was taken up by theologians in his line such as Jonathan Edwards and Karl Barth. At length he describes the positive appraisal of theosis by the Scottish Reformed theologian Thomas Forsyth Torrance (pp.142-166).

For Habets (and Torrance), the second Biblical and Reformed concept in line with theosis is the imago dei. Humans are the image of God, but this image has been destroyed by sin. Through salvation, this image is restored and believers will be transformed in the real image of God, who is Jesus, the Son of God (pp. 153-158).

Reacting to this, there are two sides of the story.

1. There are many concepts in the Bible, especially the New Testament, that make a doctrine of deification possible, as long as the concept is not taken to mean, that we become god. We are created in God’s image and will be transformed into the image of God per se, Jesus Christ (Phil 3:21, Rom 8:29): We are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and Jesus is in us (and we in him). “What is born of the spirit is spirit” (John 3:6), yes, “You … may become participants of the divine nature” (2Pet 1:4). And all this leads to the concept of becoming holy, a concept central not only to all holiness movements but to all Protestant revivals and Evangelical movements, even where soteriology was strictly separated from the following ethics. Thus it always only can be a question of interpretation of the concept, not of pure denial.
2. As soon one accepts this, for Protestants the same questions concerning the relationship between salvation and theosis arise as between salvation and sanctification. It is here where the real discussion should have started. It is a pity that only Reformed theology interacts with theosis (though as a Reformed theologian I like the essay by Habets), but Lutheran theologians (who are mainly critical of “deification”), Methodist theologians (who are mostly in favor of it, since John Wesley), and Pentecostal theologians have different views on the relation of salvation and holiness which should have been discussed.

Dr. Reinhard Hempelmann creates a Basis for Discussions with Evangelicals

Frank Hinkelmann and Thomas Schirrmacher regarding a new Text by the Central Office for World View Issues (Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen – EZW) of the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD)

That the Evangelical Church can report profoundly, fairly, and in an informed and discriminating manner, while not keeping silent on what is rather worrisome and critical, has been demonstrated in the booklet “Movements in Evangelicalism: Articles on the Vibrancy of conservative Protestantism” (German original “Evangelikale Bewegungen: Beiträge zur Resonanz des konservativen Protestantismus,” EZW-Texte 206, Berlin, 2010). The booklet was written by the head of the Evangelical Central Office for World View Issues within the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). As Evangelicals we can at this point say congratulations and many thanks to Dr. Hempelmann. Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals alike should read this study and use it as a basis for more intensive discussions.

I (Thomas Schirrmacher) openly admit that in my very recently released book Fundamentalism I recommended another notion of fundamentalism than the one Hempelmann uses. Hempelmann uses an intra-Christian notion and, for that reason, he holds the question of how Scripture is understood to be central for the definition of fundamentalism. I, on the other hand, assume a ‘militant claim to truth’ to be fundamentalism and hold the question of Scripture to be secondary (even in the case of the Catholic church, it is not a matter of the Scriptures being the final authority but rather the papal teaching post; in Hinduism and other religions there is violent fundamentalism without reference back to any scriptures).

But since Dr. Hempelmann makes it clear that someone with a very conservative view of Scripture can be tolerant and friendly towards democracy, and that someone who does not hold such a stance can still be unteachable, I can nevertheless relate to almost everything which he writes.

“There is justification for urging the use of differentiated terms” (29), writes Dr. Hempelmann, for instance so as not to equate Evangelicalism with fundamentalism. Also in the case of a fundamentalist understanding of Scripture, he still urges some more differentiation, that is, to see whether one moves openly and appreciatively in a larger community of Christians” or whether the Christianity of Christians who think differently is simply written off (29).

Hempelmann also openly views fundamentalism as an inquiry made to the Church and churches, and it shows “deficits in community building strength, ethical obligation, and religious orientation” (35).

Surely in the enormously broad spectrum of Evangelicals, charismatics, and Pentecostals, there will also be those who neither desire discussions with other Evangelicals nor with the Evangelical Church. But whoever among Evangelicals holds to Jesus’ command for unity between Christians, and whoever is convinced that we can only attest corporately to the Christian message amidst our nation, will look at these questions self-critically and not reject the outstretched hand, which in light of media pressure is not to be taken for granted. On the contrary, it takes courage.

Drs. Frank Hinkelmann, Chair, Austrian Evangelical Alliance

Prof. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher, Chair, Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance

Link: http://www.ekd.de/ezw/Publikationen_2109.php

Racism is false and evil – Interview

When my book Rassismus (Racism) was published, I gave the following interview. An English translation of the book will be published in 2011.

Is a new book against racism necessary?

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.

An Evangelical opposing racism?

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 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.

So everything is just history?

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.

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

In any event, it is a fact that the Pietists have always had a better relationship to people of other cultures than to 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 under the title Racism and its reasonable Evangelical Conquest. 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 set the tone in many committees.

But what about Evangelicals in the USA?

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.

But don’t Evangelicals view Islam very critically?

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.

What distinguishes racism from other forms of discrimination?

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.

Constructs?

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.

Do you have a vivid example you can give me?

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.

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

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. ‘Yellows’ are often lighter than ‘whites,’ ‘reds’ are not red, but rather their spectrum of lighter to darker is found in other races.

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

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?

How does one argue against racism?

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.

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.’

What are the most common forms of racism?

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 the co-called ‘blacks’ or people with darker skin color, against Jews, and against so-called ‘gypsies,’ which is to say against Sintis and Romanies.

The three international forms of racism are the defamation and fight against or oppression of 1. ‘Blacks’ (or of people who have a darker skin color than oneself ) – they are allegedly dumb, barbarian, and uncivilized; 2. Jews – they are allegedly devious, greedy, and domineering; 3. ‘Gypsies’ – they are allegedly asocial and thievish.

I understand you have written a two volume work about Hitler’s war religion. Is that correct?

Yes, I try to demonstrate that Hitler actually believed in a Creator. That Creator had nothing in common with the Christian God, but it was one that implied a religious exaggeration of the social Darwinist racial conflict. It is a disgrace that only a few Christians recognized that what was being dealt with in the case of Hitler was something that was in complete opposition to their religion. It was not just something political, from which an individual could simply seek to remove himself.

But is not the idea of the ‘Volk’ a creation ordinance?

No, I agree with Karl Barth on this. The Bible indicates that marriage and family as well as work are all creation ordinances prior to the fall. The state, and mostly as a multi-ethnic state, is also seen as instituted by God. Of course, God also wanted the church as an institution. But the Volk, or nation? Even the people of Israel consisted of a number of ancestral sources. In the Bible one see that people grew apart. And nowhere does it say that only one people – whatever that was – should live in one country. The moral connection of a nation-state with an ancestral people, a religion, and a language is a modern invention which does not fit with practically any country on earth.

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

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.

Are you against right-wing extremism, then?

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. Just think about left wing party leader Lafontaine’s comments regarding Polish workers in Germany or think of the Marxist dictator Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

The Media vs. Religious Freedom!?

In my statement yesterday as an expert in human rights for the parliamentary human rights committee of the German Bundestag (Federal Parliament), my observations on the role of the media and its negative effects on religious freedom were widely discussed. I am publishing this in advance, from that section of my opinion. The comprehensive report will be published together with all the statements and the minutes of the Bundestag committee in November. Six experts gave their opinions on the future of religious freedom in Europe and the role of Islam in it. I was nominated by the MPs of Chancellor Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union.

Media reports are only available in German yet:

• Press release by the federal parliament: www.bundestag.de
• Christian Media: www.pro-medienmagazin.de
• Press service of the Humanist Union: hpd.de
• Baha’i press service: iran.bahai.de

“Far too little attention is paid to the way in which the media, in a broad sense, will determine whether or not the discussion on the integration of Islamic faith communities into Europe will lead to a constructive result. The media talk about the book by Thilo Sarrazin and a phrase in the speech of the President have just proved this again.

An example is the crucial the role of the international (and German) media in dealing with a crazy, isolated preacher in the United States who announced the burning of a Koran. In a world of 2.5 billion Muslims and Christians of numerous varieties, this would be a totally meaningless event, if the media were not involved. People wanted to finally see peaceful evangelicals pulled into a culture war with Muslims – fundamentalists against fundamentalists- since such an event would make the media ratings fly high. (In retrospect, a profound commentary in Der Spiegel, the German newsmagazine, provides a crown jewel of evidence.) Very quickly people expected violence from Muslims in Afghanistan and in other countries as well. If such acts of violence really related to the threatened Koran burning, no one could know with certainty, but the media was already certain. No one seemed to care that the media took the risk of causing murder and manslaughter. The 420 million-strong World Evangelical Alliance had long spoken out vehemently and loudly against public Koran burning (and also took concrete preventive steps).  And no one from WEA has ever burned a Koran.  Meanwhile, at the same time, the media did not think it was worth a report that worldwide Bibles, churches, and sometimes even Christians, are being burned. Nor did it merit a report that in Iran Baha’i texts were burned and in India Korans were burned.

The media are not contributing to social peace among religions, but for the cheap effect of audience and readership, the media promote emotional confrontations between religious groups. The work of the media in Belgium, in Orthodox countries, and in Turkey provides many further examples that the media like to inflame or exploit religious conflict, and then later to play the role of the moral judge.

The media will play a major role in determining whether religious tensions between the great religions increase or decline, as well as in the treatment of religious minorities. Violent attacks on other religions generally follow malicious misrepresentations or generalizations which have been disseminated and used against people. In such false generalizations, all the people from the highly differentiated Islamic (or evangelical) world are all thrown into one pot and discussed as if they were all the same. On this topic, Germans should study the history of Jew-baiting, which preceded the extermination of the Jews.

Whenever evangelicals as portrayed as violent, the Yezidis as “worshippers of the devil,” Catholic priests as child abusers because of celibacy, Muslims as authorized to lie “against unbelievers;” and if every time the word Islam is on TV pictures of 9/11 appear, or if with evangelicals a picture of George Bush and the war in Iraq is included; then someone is preparing particular religious groups for societal exclusion by means of constant repetition of slander against them.”

Fundamentalism is a militant Truth Claim

My German paperback Fundamentalism was published in the ‘compact’ series (Publisher: SCM Hänssler). In that book I allow myself, as a sociologist of religion, to throw my definition of fundamentalism into the ring. In my opinion one should only refer to fundamentalism if violence is involved or when a true danger for domestic safety exists.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks fundamentalism is mostly understood among the general public to be radical, violence prone, religiously motivated extremists or simply religious terrorists. What in the vernacular is meant by ‘fundamentalism’ is a militant claim to truth and precisely that is what I find to be the shortest definition.

In my opinion there are only two possibilities open to saving the term ‘fundamentalism’ for legitimate usage: either bring the term fundamentalism closer to how it is used in everyday language and relate it to truly near-violent movements. Alternatively, applying the term widely to all movements could be desirable, in which case the term is in desperate need of being de-emotionalized so that it achieves a neutral, non-pejorative meaning. For this to be achieved there has to be large scale action requiring experts who oppose the mass media, which at the moment is an illusion.

In my opinion those who warn the public about fundamentalist movements should limit themselves to those groups who are dangerous due to the principal justification they offer for the use of violence, or who demonstrate an inclination towards violence, or who even use violence, and lastly those from whom the danger at least emanates that they might want to achieve political power over dissenters by the use of undemocratic means. For that reason my definition in the book which is soon to be released is as follows:

Fundamentalism is a militant truth claim which derives its claim to power from non-disputable, higher revelation, people, values, or ideologies. It is aimed against religious freedom and peace offers and justifies, urges, or uses non-state or state-based non-democratic force in order to accomplish its goals. In the process it often invokes opposition to certain achievements of modernity in favor of historical grandeur and bygone eras, and at the same time uses these modern achievements mostly in order to extend and produce a modern variation of older religions and world views. Fundamentalism is a transformation of a religion or world view conditioned by modernity.

Who is scared of Evangelical Terrorists?

Against maliciously equating Evangelicals with Islamic Terrorists

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

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

That was all just within three days!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evangelicals and Ethics

The following article was published by the German magazine ‘idea’ as part of a series of essay “Evangelicals – who they really are”and has been translated by Dr. Richard McClary (Nuremberg)

(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.

Evangelicals against Racism

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

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

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

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

Evangelicals called for the Abolition of Slavery

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

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

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

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

Against ‘Blacks,’ Jews and ‘Gypsies’

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

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