Vienna city councilor (ÖVP)  and devout Catholic Jan Ledóchowski [1] laments the fact that the “Right-Wing Extremism Report” [2] of the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance (DÖW) equates terms like “right-wing extremist” and “right-wing Catholic” [3] and mentions him in this context, along with other politically active conservative Christians like Suha Dejmek [4] or Gudrun Kugler [5].

In my opinion, the DÖW, like many other public (state, semi-state, and private) institutions, simply reflects the “political orthodoxy” [6] of the zeitgeist, which does not tolerate opposition to its favored projects (such as abortion rights and the normalization of “alternative sexualities”). An integral part of this political orthodoxy is the premise that political positions stemming from religious beliefs (or religious beliefs not left at the door but leading to political action) are dangerous and potentially violate the separation of church and state, whether they are advocated democratically or pursued by force. For this reason, both conservative Christians and radical Islamists are labeled with the term “fundamentalists”[7] used as a pejorative.

But none of this should surprise us, because around two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy:

“Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,”
(2 Timothy 3:12, ESV)

Personally, I would not yet classify the intolerance of political orthodoxy toward religiously motivated beliefs in politics here in Austria (and in most “Western countries”[8] as persecution [9], but it is a precursor that will sooner or later provide the pretext for the coming actual persecution.

1. Jan Ledóchowski is a lawyer, married, and father of five children. As the president of the Platform for Christian Democracy and Vienna city councilor, he advocates for Christian values in politics and for greater political engagement by Christians in Austria.

   [↩]

2. The Right-Wing Extremism Report (Rechtsextremismusbericht) serves to observe and document right-wing extremist structures and includes:

   • Right-wing extremist groups and parties: such as neo-Nazis, fraternities, or the Identitarian movement.
   • Ideological focuses: racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, nationalism.
   • Crimes: statistics of right-wing extremist offenses (e.g., vandalism, violence, propaganda).
   • Right-wing terrorism and networks: monitoring international connections and potential threats.
   • Internet and social media: the growing role of online platforms in radicalization.

   Until 2001, the report was regularly published by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism (BVT). Since then, it has been managed by the Documentation Archive of the Austrian Resistance (DÖW).

   [↩]

3. It is not easy to define these two terms in a way that no one feels discriminated against. The Wikipedia articles on right-wing extremism  provides a good starting point, but (unsurprisingly) it isvery biased. Right-wing Catholicism as a term overlaps with the Christian Right but in its usage in Germany and Austria is more pejorative.

   [↩]

4. Suha Dejmek is a business consultant, evangelical Christian, and ÖVP district councilor in Vienna-Liesing.

   [↩]

5. Gudrun Kugler is a Roman Catholic theologian and lawyer as well as a member of Austria’s parliament representing the ÖVP.

   [↩]

6. “Political orthodoxy” refers to the sum of political and ideological positions and beliefs considered “socially acceptable” in a society; dissenting opinions are stigmatized.

   [↩]

7. The term fundamentalism originally emerged in the early 20th century in American Protestantism to signify a return to the fundamental tenets of Christianity. Over time, the term became neutral and then negative, used to describe a dogmatic and uncompromising attitude. It was eventually applied to movements in other religions, such as Islamism, Orthodox Judaism, or Hindu nationalism, and now even to secular ideological movements that take an uncompromising stance.

   [↩]

8. “Western countries” typically refer to nations that share cultural, political, and historical ties to Western Europe and its global influence. These countries are often characterized by:

   1. Geography:

      • Western Europe (e.g., Germany, France, the UK).
      • Countries with cultural roots in Europe, like the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

   2. Political Systems:

      • Democracies with systems emphasizing individual rights, rule of law, and separation of powers.

   3. Economic Characteristics:

      • Market-oriented economies with advanced infrastructure and industries.

   4. Cultural and Religious Foundations:

      • Historically influenced by Greco-Roman traditions, Christianity, and Enlightenment ideals.

   5. Global Context:

      • Often contrasted with “Eastern countries” or “Global South,” including regions influenced by different traditions, such as Asia, the Middle East, or Africa.

   While the term is widely used, its definition can vary depending on the context, sometimes encompassing cultural, economic, or political factors rather than strictly geographic ones.

   [↩]

9. The European Union defines religious or ideological persecution as follows:

   1. Persecution, as defined in Article 1A of the Geneva Refugee Convention, includes actions that:

      • Due to their nature or repetition, are so severe that they constitute a serious violation of fundamental human rights, particularly those rights from which no derogation is permitted under Article 15(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights, or
      • Consist of a cumulative series of measures, including human rights violations, which are so severe that they affect a person in a similar manner as described in (a).

   2. Acts considered persecution include:

      • Physical or psychological violence, including sexual violence,
      • Discriminatory legal, administrative, police, and/or judicial measures, or their discriminatory application,
      • Disproportionate or discriminatory prosecution or punishment,
      • Denial of judicial protection, resulting in disproportionate or discriminatory punishment,
      • Prosecution or punishment for refusing military service in a conflict involving crimes or acts covered by Article 12(2)’s exclusion clauses,
      • Acts based on gender or directed against children.

   3. There must be a connection between the grounds in Article 10 and the acts defined as persecution in paragraph 1.

   [↩]

Here are some thoughts, prompted by the Carini-Khelif case and extending beyond it, presented in random order. They will likely lead to my classification as a backward and “transphobic” male chauvinist — so be it, as I am already considered “homophobic” anyway. [1]

• I say “Hats off!” to Angela Carini, who said, “If the IOC allows her to compete, I respect that decision. These controversies made me sad, and I feel sorry for my opponent, who is also here just to fight.” Carini explained that her refusal to perform the customary handshake after the match was a misunderstanding: “It was not an intentional gesture, and I apologize to her and everyone. I was angry because the Olympics were over for me. I have nothing against Khelif; if I met her again, I would hug her.” My respect!
• I generally consider boxing unsuitable as a sport, and even more so for women. It is a skill that certainly belongs in police and military training, and perhaps in self-defense courses, but not in the Olympic Games.
• J.K. Rowling has been advocating for years to differentiate between biological/genetic sex and social gender, which may differ from each other. In this context, she commendably supports maintaining hard-won safe spaces for biological/genetic women. I fully support both positions.
• It is unclear to me whether Imane Khelif is truly a man or a woman. Imane does not seem to fit the typical transgender pattern. However, Khelif’s (biological-genetic) sex is also not entirely clear. [2]
• If sports competitions are held separately for men and women based on biological-genetic sex, for good scientific reasons [3], then there must be objective criteria for determining who is a man and who is a woman, and these criteria must be verifiable in case of doubt.

So much for the specific case of Carini-Khelif. But the discussion about this case also touches on and raises other issues.

• I differentiate between religious beliefs and convictions which apply in my private life and my faith community, and the laws and societal conventions of our largely secular societies and states. Unlike many of my fellow believers, I do not insist that people with other or no religious convictions conform to mine.
• In a democratically governed state, it must be legitimate for people with different beliefs and values to represent and try to implement them politically in accordance with existing laws. This right belongs to conservatives and “progressives,” the right and the left, the religious and the atheists alike.
• I respect the right of every person to live and love according to their ideas, in accordance with existing laws. However, I reserve the right to freely express my opinion on the lifestyle choices of others and resist the compulsive, sometimes even legally enforced, expectation to affirm these choices good and right.
• With the exception of certain physical characteristics such as skin color or gender, I consider anti-discrimination laws legitimate only in the public sector and essential services, and possibly even in public corporations. [4] However, I think they go too far when they interfere with the right of individual citizens to freedom of assuciation,  to determine for themselves with whom they want to work or do business, by dictating, for example, whom they should hire or for which customers they should provide their services.

1. The use of terms like “homophobic” and “transphobic” for anyone who disagrees with the current politically correct views on homosexuality or transsexuality implies that such opinions cannot have a rational basis. This is both ignorant and unhelpful to a reasonable, civilized debate.[↩]
2. One of the major fallacies in the current gender debate is the assumption that issues like gender dysphoria, intersexuality, and purely psychological problems, such as feeling like being in the wrong body, can be easily and seamlessly resolved through hormone treatment and/or surgery, or even simply through legal regulations. The longer medicine, psychology, and legislation follow this approach, the more unexpected, harmful side effects emerge.[↩]
3. there are scientifically proven differences in physical performance between people with male DNA and those with female DNA[↩]
4. In this context, “public corporations” refers to firms or organizations that are not owned or assigned to individual, named persons, and are therefore not as directly connected to the beliefs of these owners as in the case of partnerships.[↩]

Gedurende mijn jeugd had ik contacten met Vlaamse (Belgische) en Nederlandse mensen die grote indruk op me maakten; in mijn late tienerjaren kwam ik tot een levend geloof in Christus door een groep die verschillende Nederlanders omvatte, en in de daaropvolgende jaren hebben Nederlandse mensen, waaronder de overleden auteur Corrie ten Boom, een Nederlandse Joodse holocaustoverlevende, mij op vele manieren beïnvloed. Ik werd een “Holland fanboy”, zozeer zelfs dat ik Nederlands leerde (wat, toegegeven, geen al te moeilijke opgave is voor een taalkundig begaafde Duitssprekende).

In de afgelopen decennia heeft het land dat ooit opstond tegen de onmenselijke nazi-ideologieën, waaronder euthanasie en antisemitisme, euthanasie omarmd en recentelijk een verontrustende tolerantie voor seksueel misbruik en verkrachting van kinderen getoond.

De 29-jarige Nederlandse beachvolleyballer Steven van de Velde werd in 2016 veroordeeld tot vier jaar gevangenisstraf nadat hij had bekend een 12-jarig meisje in 2014 in het VK te hebben verkracht. Onder een verdrag tussen het VK en Nederland werd hij overgebracht naar Nederland om zijn straf uit te zitten, waar zijn veroordeling werd gewijzigd in “ontucht” en zijn straf werd teruggebracht tot één jaar, die hij uitzat in een Nederlandse gevangenis. Ongeveer een jaar na zijn vrijlating hervatte van de Velde zijn sportcarrière en nam hij deel aan beachvolleybal. Dit jaar werd hij geselecteerd om Nederland te vertegenwoordigen op de Olympische Spelen in Parijs.

In reactie op protesten tegen zijn deelname van slachtofferadvocaten zowel in het VK als in Nederland zelf, verklaarde het Nederlands Olympisch Comité dat “Steven geen pedofiel is,” dat hij geen recidivist is en dat alle noodzakelijke waarborgen zijn genomen.

Maar recidive is hier niet het probleem.

Ten eerste, gezien de quasi-religieuze rol en het belang van competitiesporten in onze cultuur – iets dat blijkt uit de pracht en praal rondom zowel de Olympische Spelen als andere internationale competities en de verering van succesvolle atleten – komt het inzetten van een atleet op een grote internationale competitie zoals de Olympische Spelen neer op een soort heiligverklaring, een presentatie van deze atleet als een heilige en rolmodel, als iemand die het waard is om nagevolgd te worden. Is dat echt gepast in het geval van iemand die veroordeeld is voor drie gevallen van verkrachting van een 12-jarig meisje?

Ten tweede, dit toont enorm disrespect voor de slachtoffers van seksueel misbruik, van wie de meesten worstelen jarenlang met de nadelige effecten, vaak fysiek maar altijd psychologisch, terwijl misbruikers, zelfs als ze lange gevangenisstraffen uitzitten en nog meer als hun opsluiting heel kort was zoals in het geval van van der Velde, de situatie psychologisch overwonnen en zelfs succesvolle carrières hebben. Het zien van hen op een voetstuk verergert het geweld dat deze slachtoffers is aangedaan.

Ik ben zeer teleurgesteld dat het Nederlandse rechtssysteem de brutaliteit had om een veroordeling voor verkrachting omtewandelen tot “ontucht” en een straf van vier jaar terug te brengen tot één jaar; ik ben teleurgesteld dat er geen massaal protest is in Nederland tegen het inzetten van een veroordeelde kinderverkrachter, en dat de rest van het Nederlandse team blijkbaar ook geen probleem heeft met de aanwezigheid van deze man in hun gelederen.

Ten slotte vind ik de bewering dat van der Velde geen pedofiel is ook zeer verontrustend. Pedofilie wordt gedefinieerd als een pathologie, een ziekelijke, abnormale, bijna verslavende of dwangmatige seksuele aantrekking tot kinderen; en hoewel het zeker verwijtbaar is om aan deze aantrekking toe te geven en de gevolgen voor de slachtoffers verwoestend zijn, impliceert de classificatie als aandoening op zijn minst een zekere verzachting van de schuld. Als echter iemand kinderen misbruikt, met name hen seksueel misbruikt en zelfs tot verkrachting overgaat zonder aan de aandoening pedofilie te lijden, kan deze daad alleen worden verklaard door pure, onversneden slechtheid.

Natuurlijk gaan we ervan uit dat een crimineel die zijn gevangenisstraf heeft uitgezeten en betaald heeft voor zijn misdaad, of in een christelijke context, zijn zonde heeft beleden en vergeving van Christus heeft ontvangen, zijn misdaad niet langer tegen hem gehouden mag worden; maar er valt veel te zeggen voor het feit dat bepaalde misdaden, zelfs nadat ze zijn geboet en vergeven, een persoon diskwalificeren voor bepaalde rollen. Dit geldt voor pastors, priesters, leraren en anderen die onze cultuur verheft tot rolmodellen. Boetedoening (seculier en religieus) en vergeving impliceren niet dat er geen blijvende gevolgen zijn.

Vertaald van mijn originele Engelse tekst met de hulp van ChatGPT.

Throughout my childhood I had contacts with Flemish (Belgian) and Dutch people who greatly impressed me; in my late teens I came to a living faith in Christ through a group including several Dutch people, and in subsequent years Dutch people including the late author Corrie teen Boom, a Dutch Jewish holocaust survivor, influenced me in many ways. I became a “Holland fan boy”, so much so that I learned Dutch (granted, not too difficult a feat for a linguistically gifted German speaker).

In recent decades, however, the country that once stood up to the inhumane nazi ideologies including euthanasia and antisemitism has embraced euthanasia, and most recently demonstrated a disturbing tolerance for the sexual abuse and rape of children.

29-year-old Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde was sentenced to four years in prison in 2016 after confessing to the 2014 rape of a 12-year-old girl in the UK. Under a treaty between the UK and the Netherlands he was transferred to the Netherlands to serve his sentence, where his conviction was changed to “fornication” and his sentence reduced to one year, which he served in a Dutch prison. About a year after his release from prison van de Velde resumed his sports career, competing in beach volleyball. This year he was selected to represent the Netherlands in the Paris Olympics.

In response to protests against his participation from victim advocates both in the UK and the Netherlands itself the Dutch Olympic Committe asserted that “Steven is not a pedophile,” that he is not a recidivist[1] and that all necessary safeguards have been put in place.

But recidivism is not the issue here.

Firstly, considering the quasi-religious role and importance of competitive sports in our culture–something that is evidenced by the pomp and ritual surrounding both the Olympics and other international competitions as well as the adulation of successful athletes–fielding an athlete at a major international competition like the Olympics amounts to a sort of canonization, a presenting of this athlete as a saint and role model, as someone worth emulating. Is that really appropriate in the case of someone who was convicted of three counts of rape of a 12-year-old.

Secondly, this shows enormous disrespect to the victims of sexual abuse, most of whom struggle with the ill effects, often physical but always psychological, while abusers, even if the serve long prison sentences and even more so when their incarceration was rather nominal as in van der Velde’s case, have moved on psychologicallly and even with successful careers. Seeing them put on a pedestal exacerbates the violence done to these victims.

I am very disappointed that the Dutch legal system had the temerity to reduce a conviction for rape into one for “fornication” and a four-year sentence to one year; I am disappointed that there is not a groundswell of protest in the Netherlands against the fielding of a convicted child rapist, and that the rest of the Dutch team apparently also has no problem with the presence of this man in their ranks.

Finally, I think the assertion that van der Velde is not a pedophile is also very troubling. Pedophilia is defined as a pathology, an abnormal, almost addictive or compulsive sexual attraction to children; and while acting on this attraction is definitely culpable, and the effects are devastating for the victims, the pathology of the condition implies at least a certain mitigation of guilt. If, however, someone abuses children, particularly sexually abuses them and going so far as rape, without suffering from the pathology of pedophilia, that is motivated and driven by pure, unmitigated evil.

Of course we assume that a criminal having served his prison sentence has paid for his crime, or in a Christian context, has repented of his sin and received forgiveness from Christ, his crime should no longer be held against them; but there is a lot to be said that certain crimes, even after they have been atoned and forgiven, disqualify a person from certain roles. This is true of pastors, priests, teachers, and others which our culture elevates to role models. Atonement (secular and religious) and forgiveness do not imply that there are no lasting consequences.

1. likely to re-offend[↩]

German Evangelical magazine idea (Nr. 27.2024, p. 7) quotes from a taz interview with Alexander Korte, a German specialist in child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy, who comments on the statement that gender identity is innate:

“That’s absurd. Neurobiological research definitely owes proof that gender identity could be genetically determined. Even from a developmental psychology perspective, it is absurd to assume that identity is something one is born with. From my point of view, identity is always the result of an individual’s bonding and relationship history – and also physical history.” [1]

Politically speaking, I agree with this statement but consider it irrelevant to most of the controversial gender debate. That debate is not primarily about identity, but about biology. Separate sporting events for women and men are justified by the biological differences between (biological) women and men; the same applies to gender-segregated toilets, showers, changing rooms, etc. All of this has nothing to do with identity.

And frankly: it is also absurd to assume that perceived gender identity should take precedence over biological sex in every respect and in all situations. That is postmodern, post-scientific nonsense, and where, for example, the rights of the small but very vocal number of “trans people” are supposed to trump the rights of the large majority of “cis people,”[2] it is profoundly undemocratic.

Also, for the assessment of this issue in traditional Christian theology[3] this question is not particularly relevant: the theological evaluation of societal phenomena and human behaviors is not based on genetics or whether something is innate, but on what God’s Word, the Bible, says. After all, the Bible clearly states that we all have an innate inclination to sin (Romans 3:10-18: [4], which manifests differently in different people. Nevertheless, sin is never justified.

Whether and to what extent the Bible represents an identity differing from biological sex as a result of fallen and therefore sinful nature can certainly be discussed. It is clear that the Bible does refer to men in women’s clothing (and vice versa) as “an abomination” (Deuteronomy 22:5[5], but spends far more time and has far more condemnation for other behaviors and attitudes, calling them sin, “abomination,” and “wickedness.” And how did Jesus put it? “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.”

(The cover picture of this post is a screenshot from Merriam-Webster‘s entry for “transgender”.)

1. Dr. Korte is indeed critical of gender ideology, as a quick Google search clearly shows.[↩]
2. The term trans-(men, women, people) refers to individuals whose perceived gender identity does not align with their biological sex, in contrast to cis-(men, women, people), whose gender identity and biological sex match. Additionally, there are the adjectives transgender and cisgender. All of these are neologisms (late 20th century) based on the Latin words trans (beyond) and cis (on this side of) as well as the originally grammatically term gender.[↩]
3. i.e. a theology which starts from the premise that the Bible is God’s revelation of and about Himself, that it doesn’t and shouldn’t be changed, and that it is still the standard for Christian faith and theology today.[↩]
4. “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Paul quotes here various passages from the Hebrew Bible (“Old Testament”) which describe the innate inclination of humans towards sin.[↩]
5. “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.”[↩]

Nicola Sturgeon, forrmer First Minister of Scotland, in a recent interview:

Ms Sturgeon also doubled down on her view that transgender women are women, and said in the on-stage interview with trans novelist and activist Juno Dawson that “people should be able to live how they want to be”.

She warned that “it seems like everyone in society is raining down on trans people” and despite forming 0.5 per cent of the population, they were used as “a battering ram” and that gay people and other marginalised groups were becoming “collateral damage”.

In my view trans people “living how they want” is not really the issue.

• The issue is ignoring the instincts and wishes of most of the 99.5% of the people by criminalizing and ostracizing the view that binary sex is immutable and gender is merely a social construct.
• The issue is threatening people with fines, jail, or “cancelling” for seeing an important distinction between biological women and trans women, and daring to say so.
• The issue is denying physical women the safety of biologically female-only spaces.
• The issue is expecting biologically female athletes to compete against trans athletes with the physique of a man.
• The issue is whether we should allow children and adolescents who are still under their parents’ care and who need parental permission or agreement for most important decisions, to make this one life-altering decision without parental consent. Even with parental consent, irreversible treatments at such a young age are problematic.
• The issue (not only in the trans debate but in many of these hot topics) is the notion that people have the right to everyone else’s approval and affirmation and the right not to have their feelings hurt, and that people who withhold that approval and affirmation or hurt someone’s feelings should be criminally prosecuted. This makes a mockery of freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. 

And “gay people” (specifically lesbians) and also other biological women, are becoming collateral damage when forced, against their preference, to share toilets, showers, changing rooms, etc ., with biological males who have self-declared as female, and are being slandered as TERFs when they object.

In a recent prayer of lament over the state of the church and society posted on social media one aspect being lamented was “You do not go out with our armies”.

But where does the expectation come from that God SHOULD go out with our armies?

God went out with Israel’s armies of old because they are His people and they were fighting in direct obedience to His instructions and with His promise of victory.

Our armies, as a rule, have NO direct mandate from God, our wars are not commanded by Him, our nations are not His people the way Israel is, and our governments do not even acknowledge Him, so why should He go out with them?

Throughout church history whenever the church has invoked God on behalf of the nations’ military campaigns — frequently, in fact, both sides in a conflict invoked God’s help — the results were not to the glory of God.

A very interesting and provocative video from Catholic podcaster and former Anglican priest, Gavin Ashenden[1]:

«The great flaw in the defence of Western civilization seems to be that it’s abandoned the faith which created it: Christendom. It voluntarily and energetically orphaned itself from Christianity. Christians and liberal secularists are going to face a serious challenge this coming remembrance weekend, when, as seems likely, Islamic protests “spill over” to confront the vestiges of remembrancee culture.

Will all the secularists realize that pleasure-seeking consumerism isn’t powerful enough, ideologically, to provide boundaries to contain Islamic expansionism and missionary ambition? They refused to think this so far. And if the secularists wake up to their own limitations and existential instability, which way then will they turn?

They will only have three possibilities:

• More secular pseudo progress with the dragon eating its own tail, slipping into increasing incoherence and contradiction as the DIE (diversity, inclusion, and equity) agenda sucks it into a growing totalitarian madness;
• or Islam itself, promising, once again, other forms of totalitarian control such as we find in Iran;
• or, thirdly, Christianity and Christian culture, where freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, the dignity of the individual made in God’s image, the priority of forgiveness, and the promise of those basic freedoms we’ve taken for granted, is offered.»

1. Gavin Ashenden is a former Anglican priest who four years ago joined the Roman Catholic Church, being disillusioned by the increasing revisionism of the Church of England. Now a layman, he writes and podcasts on current issues in the church and in the world.[↩]

In this panel discussion at the ARC conference in London this month Greg Sheridan pointed out that all those on the world stage hostile to the democratic West (China, Russia, Iran, as well as their prixies) are led by people of deep religious or ideological convictions, and that we are taken by surprise by their actions because we don’t understand these convictions.

In reply, historian Niall Ferguson hit the nail on the head by saying, in part,

“Part of the difficulty we have in understanding conviction, ideological conviction, is that we have none. It’s very hard to understand that kind of motivation if your belief system has become so eroded that it becomes at best a cost-benefit analysis problem.”

I don’t agree with everything said at this conference, but the talks and panels are very interesting and well worth listening to:

https://www.youtube.com/@arc_forum

A Guest Contribution by Heinrich Arnold [1] from the Bruderhof Community.

Note: This article by a leader of the Bruderhof Community [2], Heinrich Arnold, provides a valuable challenge and contribution to our considerations on the complex topics of enemy love/self-defense/state violence/just war (bellum iustum), which has become extremely relevant due to recent events in Israel.[3]

The Gospel of Peace in a Time of Terror

A Bruderhof pastor asks how Christians should respond in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel.

By Heinrich Arnold
October 12, 2023

Last Friday, October 6, 2023, was a day of festivity in Israel, as throngs of people attended synagogues to celebrate the end of Sukkot and the beginning of Simchat Torah, “rejoicing with the Torah.” As this joyful holiday dawned on Saturday, unimaginable evil was unleashed. Thousands of rockets struck nearby towns as well as cities as far away as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Masked gunmen breached one of the most heavily surveilled borders in the world, massacring whole families still sleeping in bed, raping women, and rounding up an estimated 150 hostages.

By now, everyone has heard of the shocking atrocities perpetrated by Hamas in Israel over the last week. In the face of this horror, how should Christians respond?

The New Testament calls on us to mourn with those who mourn (Rom. 12:14). At a time like this, we should grieve with the people of Israel, especially the survivors of Hamas’s attack. And we should mourn too, with civilians in Gaza who are already suffering as collateral damage in the military response to it.

We must pray for peace. To say this may sound like a platitude. But if we believe in God’s power to intervene in history, prayer remains vital all the same.

Beyond grieving and praying, what else should we do?

From many corners, there are demands for stern action from world leaders. This is more than understandable because of the depth of fury, fear, and panic that Israelis feel at being violated in such terrible ways by an organization that has pledged to eradicate their country. The desire for a swift and severe reaction is at the core of our human response to evil. Like many, I have traveled to Israel and the West Bank on several occasions, most recently last year, and have made close friends on both sides of the long-standing conflict in the region. Many of them have spent years working for peace and dialogue in order to overcome the deep-seated hatred in their communities. When I’ve spoken with some of these in the last few days, they describe their incredible pain. They are living through a level of anger and dread of the future beyond anything I can imagine.

In my church community, the Bruderhof, one way that the terror has come close to home is the massacres that took place in kibbutz communities such as Kfar Aza and Be’eri, in which hundreds were killed, including toddlers and babies. The ties of friendship between the kibbutzim and the Bruderhof as two community movements go back ninety years. Though the Bruderhof is a Christian church and the kibbutzim are Jewish, we share a commitment to a communal way of life and have historical roots in common. Our hearts go out to these communities, and to all who are suffering the anguish of the past few days.

For my own part, as a pastor, I am not in a position to tell the governments involved what actions they should take. Nor do I have any say over how other world powers will respond. Government leaders will do what they do anyway. Let us pray that their decisions in the coming days and weeks are for the wellbeing and protection of all the people affected, especially the most vulnerable.

But though I don’t know what governments should do, I do know what followers of Jesus are called to do.

The only thing Christians can do with absolute certainty is to testify to Christ’s gospel of peace. Our calling is to pray for peace and for all the victims of violence, to refuse to support violence ourselves, and to be peacemakers. As members of his church on earth, we are to be an embassy in the present world of the future peaceable kingdom.

Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” (Matt. 5:9). He taught: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:43–45).

We should deplore all war; we can never cheerlead for violence, however justified it may seem to be.

Christians should protest the barbarity of the attacks on Israel – the coldblooded targeting of civilians, the rapes, the massacre of children, women, and elders. We should speak up, too, against depriving civilians of water and electricity and the bombing of residential targets. We should deplore all war. That is our duty; to be silent is sinful. Especially in moments when the public mood grows bloody-minded and vindictive, we can never cheerlead for violence, however justified it may seem to be.

What force can overcome such evil? Again, Jesus teaches us the answer: Only love can truly win over enemies.

The apostle Paul echoed Jesus’ teaching on peacemaking, writing in his Letter to the Romans: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ On the contrary: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

For Christians, it can be easy to lose sight of Jesus’ teachings about how to confront evil. It is tempting to reach instead for answers that seem more “realistic.” Yet hard-power responses to enmity are no guarantee of safety (witness the massive intelligence failure that left open the door to the Hamas attack); in fact, it’s easy to think of examples of how they can backfire. In any case, above and beyond considerations of effectiveness, Christians believe that Jesus’ way of peacemaking is the only truly realistic answer to evil.

We who profess Christ must testify confidently to his command to love rather than to trust in armed force. Christians must hold fast to his promise that his kingdom of peace will come, and that in it is the world’s hope. That is the future promised by the Psalmist:

Come and see what the Lord has done …
He makes wars cease
to the ends of the earth.
He breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
he burns the shields with fire.
He says, “Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth.”

The Lord Almighty is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress.

This article was oiginally published in English on Plough.com as “The Gospel of Peace in a Time of Terror.” Copyright ©2023 by Plough Quarterly. Posted here by permission.

1. Heinrich Arnold is the Senior Pastor of the Bruderhof Communities in the USA and worldwide. Heinrich is a great-grandson of the Bruderhof founder and is a father and grandfather, a teacher in the Bruderhof schools, and a medical practitioner. He regularly writes for the Bruderhof’s magazine, Plough Quarterly, and delivers a Gospel message every Sunday on his YouTube channel . He lives with his wife and family at the Woodcrest Bruderhof. Twitter: @JHeinrichArnold[↩]
2. The Bruderhof Community is a movement in the Anabaptist tradition that practices a communal sharing of goods, oriented towards the example of the early Christian community in Jerusalem. Its origins can be traced back to Eberhard and Emmy Arnold, who founded the first Bruderhof Community in Hesse in 1920. After being expelled by the National Socialists in 1937, they initially found refuge in the Principality of Liechtenstein and later in England. Today, there are Bruderhof settlements in Australia, the United Kingdom, Paraguay, the United States, Germany, and Austria (in Retz and Stein/Furth[↩]
3. I have posted two articles here on the blog in the days since the terrible Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, and many more on Facebook, in which I emphasized Israel’s right to self-defense. Due to Hamas’ inhumane strategy of placing terror facilities (which are a legitimate target of Israeli attacks) in residential areas, hospitals, schools, etc., many civilians become victims in this legitimate defense. And I maintain: this ultimately does not change Israel’s right to self-defense.
   I also know that there are quite a few people in the Israeli army (Israeli Defense Force, IDF) who believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. I know of such a family that has five children at the front, three of their own and two in-laws, and according to my understanding of the New Testament, this is legitimate.
   However, there has been a tradition of pacifism in the church from the very beginning, i.e., since the apostles and early church fathers, the conviction that disciples of Jesus should not resort to any form of violence under any circumstances, even as soldiers or as policemen. This tradition somewhat faded into obscurity in the Middle Ages and was then rediscovered and embraced by the Anabaptists during the Reformation period (often referred to as the “Radical Reformation” or as the third wing of the Reformation, alongside Lutherans and Reformed). Today, the Anabaptist movement continues in the form of the Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites. The Bruderhof Community, which emerged in Germany during the interwar period of the 20th century, is very much in this tradition and was also very closely connected with the Hutterites for a while.
   I consider this tradition to be very valuable, and especially today, as an important challenge and counterweight to currents in the church that are too uncritical of state violence.[↩]