In a letter to the editor published in profil 18/2021 biologist and elephant researcher Dr Hannah Mumby from the University of Hong Kong writes,

“In 2018 Prince William travelled to Tanzania, Kenia, and Namibia to learn about conservation. At a conferenc he presented a video about his trip to Tanzania. Many NGOs criticized that the video was promoting a  “white saviour” image, because only one African, a student, spoke in front of the camera while the remaining interviewees were international conservationists.”

I assume that the video which Prince William presented reflected his trip to Tanzania: what he experienced, who he talked to, etc. It should not be too surprising to anyone that a politically prominent figure like the Prince primarily encounters carefully selected people on a trip like this; people who are judged by the security teams (both his own and those of the host country) to be harmless and unlikely to be a danger. That this selection criterion results primarily in prominent experts and activists, and that these, for any number of reasons tend to be mostly white Americans and Europeans, does not surprise me either.

I am also not surprised (because this phenomon is not new) but rather irritated that activists and propagandists (and I use these terms without any negative connotation) have the tendency to consider everything someone says propaganda, or to dig through it for things that could be interpreted as propaganda.

Most of us normal folks (and I assume that this applies to Prince William as well) are not constantly in propaganda mode when we comment on something; much of the time we simply report, without value judgments, on what we have experienced; we are not at all concerned with how others could interpret what we say as propaganda or promotion of this or that.

And so I also assume that Prince William travelled to Africa to express his interest in conservation and to support various conservation initiatives; that he presented his video for these same reason, without worrying overmuch about who he had talked to or interviewed. I am pretty sure that he was not seeking to make some political statement about the ethnic or national identity of the conservationists he spoke to. If “many NGOs” wish to interpret his video that way, then it is because they assume that everyone else thinks in the same categories and patterns as they themselves — and that’s pretty naïve and stupid.

Increasingly there are reports of Christians getting into trouble with police for publicly preaching against homosexuality and gay marriage, most recently this report on the site churchleaders.com. The verdict of “Incitement” against Pastor Olaf Latzel in Bremen is another example.

Here are my thoughts on this:

Of course Christians, like everyone else, should have the right to exercise their constitutional right of freedom of opinion and speech, and the fact that this right is increasingly eroded by labelling some opinions “hate speech” is a problem and politically concerning.

BUT: From a spiritual perspective our task as Christians and as the church is NOT to preach Christian morality to an unbelieving world, but to preach Jesus Christ as Lord and only Saviour.

When people come to Jesus and are born again then the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth, and He cannot be arrested by police.

Of course, as Christians we will be increasingly discriminated against when we express our convictions on various topics, or when we refuse to participate in certain activities (i.e. abortions, same-sex weddings), and this is a deplorable development in countries that boast of their liberal society because it is the very people who most vocally demand tolerance for their views who are most intolerant of others.

But I warn against claiming persecution for our faith, even obliquely, as long as we are permitted to preach Jesus as Lord, as the crucified and risen Christ and Saviour.

The problem is this: if we call the discrimination which we experience on certain subjects here in Europe and other western countries, “persecution for Christ’s sake,” when Christians in countries like China, North Korea, or India experience violent oppression and persecution including imprisonment and even death, or while Christian refugees in refugee camps here in Europe experience violent persecution from Muslim fellow refugees, we are effectively risk minimizing the suffering of these persecuted Christians as we focus on our own discomfort. If we complain of being persecuted right now, how will we cope if we ever are faced with real persecution?

During the nine days (hence novena¹) from May 14 (Ascension Day) through May 22 (the Saturday before Pentecost/Whitsun) Christians of all different denominations are invited to unite in prayer for the country of Austria. On Wednesday, May 13, a video will be release introducing the novena.

In the evening of May 24 (Pentecost Monday) there will be a live-streamed prayer service with leaders of the major faith traditions in Austria (Roman Catholic, Lutheran/Reformed, Free Churches, Eastern Orthodox).

On each of the nine days a video will be released focusing on one of Austria’s nine provinces, and there is a 24/7 prayer calendar where both groups (churches, parishes, etc) and individuals can sign up to pray during specific one-hour slots.

More information can be found at the website “Österreich Betet Gemeinsam” as well as on social media (Facebook, Instagram).

In an article on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Eichmann trial in Israel Holocaust historian Deborah E. Lipstadt writes,

«Today, amid a rising tide of antisemitism, I am troubled that so many people only see this scourge among their political enemies and never among their compatriots. This happens at both ends of the political spectrum.

But … the evil of antisemitism must be fought irrespective of its source. Even as I fight those with whom I have nothing in common and whose views are a complete anathema to me, so too must I call to account those whose views on other matters I share.»

This is an important thought, not only but especially in the context of antisemitism, and nowhere more so than in the countries directly responsible for the Shoah, including my country of Austria.

These thoughts on Forgiveness, by Fr. Kenneth Tanner, pastor of Holy Redeemer Anglican Church in Rochester, Michigan, are published here with his permission.

I believe in the forgiveness of sins. This is a bedrock Christian trust. The sentence has more than one meaning. It first affirms that God forgives humanity and forgives humanity without conditions, before we ask or repent. God forgives as we beat, mock, torture, and kill God. Forgiveness begins with a God who forgives.

I believe in the forgiveness of sins. This also means we trust that sins can in fact be forgiven—really forgiven—because God forgives. This basic trust is now almost countercultural. We congratulate ourselves on withholding forgiveness, clinging to our injuries, even after persons have “paid their debt.” The forgiveness that begins with God lacks nothing and accomplishes its healing ends.

I believe in the forgiveness of sins. This also means we trust that when we forgive our enemy, our neighbor, our spouse, child, or friend, by participating in the a priori forgiveness of God for humanity, we are healed and grow in our likeness to God in whose image we are made. The forgiveness that begins with God divinizes humanity as we practice the pardon of God. 

I believe in the forgiveness of sins. This finally means we trust that we, too, are forgiven. This might be the hardest reality to accept: that we are forgiven by God before we were born; that there is nothing we can do or not do to change our pardon by God. The forgiveness that begins with God ends in our acceptance of forgiveness. 

I believe in the forgiveness of sins. It might by now be clear that we believe in the forgiveness of sins because the human God says from the cross “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

This is also the one who taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” (Not that God’s forgiveness follows ours, or only arrives for us or others after we forgive, but that we also forgive in imitation of the Father.)

I believe in the forgiveness of sins. The cross is where Christ sits enthroned. The cross is the “now” of the world’s judgment and all judgment is given to the Son. Jesus Christ does not after his death appear to his disciples to give 11 men the power to withhold a forgiveness he freely extends to all at the cross.

The risen Christ simply means ‘if you my disciples do not tell them that *I* have forgiven them, and if you do not forgive them yourself from the heart, they may not realize they’re already forgiven.’

I see a lot of entitlement around forgiveness; that we are allowed to withhold forgiveness, remain offended, forgive if we want…or not.

Not forgiving—and forgiving is a process—only harms the one who does not forgive. It often means nothing to the offender until they are truly aware of their offense.

I get that some leaders have used what Christians trust about forgiveness to enable and sustain abusive behavior and structures, to manipulate those they are called to serve.

Abuse of something doesn’t negate its goodness but it can make its goodness difficult to practice.

Abusive leaders sow terrific destruction when they abuse what Christians trust about forgiveness but this must be forgiven, too, and we cannot let their abuse cancel what we trust.

The Good Friday sermon by P. Raniero Cantalamess O.F.M.Cap., Preacher of the Papal Household, is of course addressed to Catholics. However, as Evangelical Christians, parts of what he says is applicable to us as well and should make us reflect on how we deal with each other, especially where differences of opinion on worldly matters are concerned: 

What is the most common cause of the bitter divisions among Catholics? It is not dogma, nor is it the sacraments and ministries, none of the things that by God’s singular grace we fully and universally preserve. The divisions that polarize Catholics stem from political options that grow into ideologies taking priority over religious and ecclesial considerations and leading to complete abandon of the value and the duty of obedience in the Church.

In many parts of the world, these divisions are very real, even though they are not openly talked about or are disdainfully denied. This is sin in its primal meaning. The kingdom of this world becomes more important, in the person’s heart than the Kingdom of God.

I believe that we all need to make a serious examination of conscience in this regard and be converted. Fomenting division is the work par excellence of the one whose name is ‘diabolos’ that is, the divider, the enemy who sows weeds, as Jesus referred to him in the parable (see Mt 13:25).

We need to learn from Jesus’ example and the Gospel. He lived at a time of strong political polarization. Four parties existed: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, and the Zealots. Jesus did not side with any of them and energetically resisted attempts to be pulled towards one or the other. The earliest Christian community faithfully followed him in that choice, setting an example above all for pastors, who need to be shepherds of the entire flock, not only of part of it. Pastors need to be the first to make a serious examination of conscience. They need to ask themselves where it is that they are leading their flocks – to their position or Jesus’. The Second Vatican Council entrusted especially to laypeople the task of translating the social, economic and political implications of the Gospel into practice in different historical situations, always in a respectful and peaceful way.

This problem, that a political ideology or opinion becomes so important in some Christians’ minds that they forget or neglect charity and brotherliness in the way they relate to other Christians, is by no means limited to Catholics but is alive and well among us Evangelicals.

In our communities, too, the shepherds (and that is what “pastor” means) need to care for the whole flock and should therefore, as much as possible, steer clear of political controversy; in our communities, too, as Christians and citizens it is our task to translate the social, economic and political implications of the Gospel into practice in different ways, always in a respectful and peaceful way.

That we need to be reminded of this became especially clear during the four years of the Trump presidency, in the context of Brexit and similar controversies in other countries, as well as in our response to the Covid pandemic and the restrictions in response to it.

Let’s repeat that:

Christ is risen!
He is risen indeed!

Here are a few things — songs, texts, objects — which symbolize Easter for me: (more…)

In my reading in recent months I have come across a lot of new acronyms such as, for example, “BLM“. One that recently caught my attention, because I use it a lot, is “FTP“. This is, apparently, a ruder and more comprehensive variant of “Defund the Police“, being shorthand for “f*ck the police“.

This puts me in a quandary, because, as I said, I use this acronym a lot, in its original meaning of “file transfer protocol“, a venerable part of the standard UNIX/Linux networking tools.

So I wish to make it very clear, lest anyone misunderstands:

Whenever I use the acronym “FTP” in a neutral or approving manner, I am referring to the File Transfer Protocol, its various implementations across different operating systems, and the action of using such implementations to transfer files. Sometimes, because there are actually more convenient ways of transferring files, I may even use the acronym in a negative or disapproving manner to refer to the file transfer protocol and the apps implementing it.

Only very rarely will I use the acronym FTP in its contemporary “political” sense because I am opposed to abusing words in this fashion, and I am opposed to abusing the police. When acts of police brutality or other illegal actions by police officers happen (and I have no doubt that they do because policing involves the exercise of power and that attracts people with a pathological desire for dominating others), there are more effective and suitable means of dealing with it than the obscene suggestion implied by “FTP”.

In an article with the rather sensational title, “Charismatics Are At War With Each Other Over Failed Prophecies Of Trump Victory“, noted journalist Julia Duin reports on reactions to the fact that modern-day prophets, mostly from the “New Apostolic Reformation” (NAR) movement, prophesied a second term for President Trump and are now either apologizing for having gotten it wrong or else are engaging in all sorts of verbal gymnastics to explain why they didn’t really get it wrong after all. And some of the mutual accusations she reports make the sensational title seem rather fitting.

I read the apologies of Vallotton, Sandford, and Johnson. The issue which they all skirt is this verse in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (and similar verses, i.e. in Ezekiel):

“But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

Basically, a prophet whose predictions do not come to pass is a false prophet (Kris Vallotton’s denial notwithstanding)—and while we obviously no longer kill false prophets, a quick apology and then business as usual seems to be a rather inadequate response.

Many of us (even some of us who are not cessationists) have had misgivings about these modern-day prophets from the start because their “prophetic ministry” does not seem to fit the biblical model. Biblical prophecy was primarily concerned with calling the people of God to repentance, not with prediction of future events and vague feel-good messages. And, importantly, the biblical prophecy model leaves no room for getting some predictions right and some predictions wrong: if you get it wrong you are a false prophet and should—at the very least—shut up and shut down your “prophetic ministry”.

And some of us, myself included, are very much concerned by the fact that increasingly the “saner” elements in the pentecostal and charismatic movements, and even some in the Catholic church, are embracing these modern-day “prophets”, as evidenced by the wide support of the “Awakening Europe” events which are organized by leaders with NAR connections, and where such prophets are invited as speakers.

For me, one of the results of all this is that I have begun to question my own involvement with some reconciliation initiatives where these “prophets” are being embraced. I shall see where this leads me.