Conference Programme version 1-1

Conference Programme

By Gerard DeGroot
Sunday, September 6, 2009

THE YEAR THAT CHANGED THE WORLD

The Untold Story Behind The Fall of the Berlin Wall
By Michael Meyer
Scribner. 239 pp. $26

Friedrich Nietzsche once described an argument about history. “I have done that,” claims memory. “I cannot have done that,” pride retorts. Or, to put it differently: The past is what happened, history what we decide to remember. We mine the past for myths to buttress our present.

The good historian is a myth buster. Michael Meyer is a very good historian. As Newsweek’s bureau chief for Eastern Europe in 1989, he watched the world turn on a dime. The myth he busts in this book concerns the contribution the United States made to the collapse of communist regimes that year. Some Americans want to believe that those regimes crumbled because of White House manipulation — clever diplomacy backed by raw power. In fact, American meddling was rather benign and, during that fateful year, conspicuously ill conceived.

(Read HERE the rest of this article.)

1. In October 1994 ninety-one evangelical Christian leaders and educators from across the world met for four days in Oradea, Romania, as a “Consultation on Theological Education and Leadership Development in Post-Communist Europe.” Under the theme, “Equipping for the Future,” we came together to demonstrate and strengthen our common faith in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; to foster collegial relationships between ourselves; to survey the critical issues which relate to enabling Christian leaders; to produce a declaration of vision, philosophy, and goals for theological education and leadership development in post-Communist Europe; and to establish a basis for common effort in response to our declaration.

Our Context in Post-Communist Europe

2. Ours is a context in the midst of profound transition. It is also a context in which many things remain unchanged, with a unique and diverse history prior to the rise of Communism, having both analogies to and significant differences from Western Europe. We are living through the demise of Communist ideology and hegemony. Yet, we live in a setting that continues to be plagued by immorality, social and political instability, religious fragmentation, economic paralysis, and bureaucratic tyranny. The remarkable cultural diversity of this region has been set free as many of our nations have rediscovered their unique self-identities. Yet, rising nationalism and agendas rooted in ethnic prejudice have brought war, tragedy, and death into our midst again. Failed command economies are in the process of being dismantled in favor of greater freedom for economic development. Yet, in too many places the introduction of economic reform has failed to alleviate widespread poverty and despair.

3. The problems of transition also extend to the church and the realm of faith. We believe that we are living in a spiritual kairos, a time of unprecedented opportunities in our region for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We thank God who is the sovereign Lord of history for the scent of spiritual harvest that is in the air, and by it we are reminded of our urgent responsibility for Christian witness in an otherwise perishing world. However, we recognize that opportunities for ministry in our region are tempered by the rapid secularization of our societies. Moreover, the tumult of social change in our midst has also reinforced some historic tensions between evangelicals and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. These tensions have the potential of diverting the energies of all Christians from the God-given possibilities of our time, and this would be a tragedy of profound consequences. The flood of well-meant, but sometimes misguided, wasteful, and inappropriate efforts from foreign agencies has further complicated the situation.

Our Identity

4. We confess our faith in the triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. We therefore declare that we are people of God, with a high view of Scripture, who see the church as the body of Christ called to live, worship, witness, and serve in a world that is alienated from God but which he has taken action in Christ to reconcile. We affirm that this Christ is the one and only God-man who died for our sins and was raised from the dead to be Lord.

Leadership Development That Is Christian

5. By Christian leadership development we mean the process of enabling men and women to lead the church of Jesus Christ forward, so that it discerns and does God’s will in relation to worship, holiness, unity, and mission. Such leaders must themselves also be followers in the way of the cross. They lead from personal weakness, being made strong only by the grace and mercy of God.

6. Wherever the church is experiencing rapid growth the need for new Christian leaders increases. Indeed, without an adequate supply of such leaders, the fruit of Christian witness is put at risk. Sub-biblical and explicitly heretical movements often grow in situations where the number of converts exceeds the capacity of the church to nurture them. This is a time of ripe spiritual harvest in post-Communist Europe, the continuation of which will be determined largely by the church’s ability to provide biblical leadership for the new generations of Christians.

7. Because the mission of the church is multi-dimensional and operating within a pluralistic and multi-ethnic situation, with spiritual, relational, social, and physical consequences, the development of leaders should also be multi-dimensional, sensitive, and cross-culturally appropriate. All Christian leaders are, like Jesus, called to humble ministry, but there is a wide diversity of ministries.

8. Some leaders are called to serve primarily in church-related roles such as evangelists, church planters, pastors, cross-cultural workers, or leaders of church or ministry organizations. These roles may be carried out by those whose time is fully dedicated to Christian ministry, and also by those who support themselves by pursuing a second vocation.

9. Other Christian leaders will exercise their ministry in national or local government, in law, medicine, or education, in the media, in industry or business. Their high standards of professional competence, theological maturity, and personal integrity will confirm their spoken and unspoken testimony as authentic ambassadors of Jesus Christ.

10. A third group of leaders are Christian scholars of all disciplines who because of their learning, experience, and vision have the ability to articulate the Christian faith and demonstrate its significance for the larger issues of our societies and the world.

11. Individuals may find themselves called to Christian leadership in more than one of these dimensions. Further, these three groups of Christian leaders must recognize their mutual dependence. It makes little sense for Christian scholars to carry on their work without substantial reference to the views of ministry practitioners in church and society. To do so invites irrelevant thought and theory. Without the perspectives of marketplace Christians and the historian’s critique, congregations and their pastors may not fully recognize when innovation is needed for effective witness in contemporary society. The pastor’s concern for heart-level change and the theologian’s tenacity for whole truth will challenge Christian leaders in government and business to bring more than superficial moral reforms to sectors in which they serve.

Education of Christian Leaders That Is Theological

12. A traditional view of theological education calls forth images of an academic process that imparts cognitive knowledge in such disciplines as biblical languages, textual and exegetical studies, dogmatics or systematic theology, church history, ethics, practical theology, and mission studies, etc. Such a definition is not wrong, but it is an incomplete picture. There is more to theological education than merely theological content.

13. Education cannot be theological without reference to a biblical world-view that proceeds from our worship and understanding of God. In addition, the outcomes of an educational process must be measured in terms of personal character formed, skills developed, as well as knowledge acquired. These three dimensions to education – knowing, being, and doing-must be applied to the education or enabling of Christian leaders. It is heartening to note that the historic limitations on Christian leadership development under the Communist regimes yielded in our churches an intuitive commitment to balancing the development of knowledge, character, and skills in emerging leaders. We must now strengthen that balance as informal leadership training is joined by more intentional formal and non-formal programs.

14. Some aspects of Christian leadership development are best centered in our congregations, such as foundational understanding of the Scriptures, growth of character and faith, and learning of basic ministry skills. The academy, however, provides faculty expertise, a concentration of educational resources, and a place for objectivity not usually available in a local church environment. Such resources and distance are essential if the theological education of Christian leaders is to be marked by serious reflection on relevant realities, history, and action. We should search for the right balance within and between the various components of theological education and Christian leadership development.

Theological Education and Leadership Development for Our Context

15. It is not enough to recognize the scope of leadership development that is called for, to ensure that the education of Christian leaders is truly theological, or to evaluate thoughtfully the manner or type of education that will yield the needed mix of Christian leaders.  The theological education of Christians leaders for a context like post-Communist Europe must equip emerging leaders to deal with the philosophical, economic, societal, cultural, ethnic, and physical realities of the region.

16.  In considering the issues we are facing in our modern context, we thank God that Christian faith came to our lands many centuries ago, resulting in the establishment of historic churches.  Through these churches many aspects of our national cultures and identities have been shaped and preserved.  We pray for the renewal of these churches by the transforming power of the Gospel resulting in holy living and authentic witness to Christ.

17. We believe it our duty to equip servant leaders to respond to the issues presented by our context in ways that are both faithful to the Gospel and also culturally relevant.  In particular we must:

‑­

18. (1) Strengthen the church’s contribution to the general welfare of our societies and legitimate nation building; (2) address the issue of conflicting nationalisms subsequent to the demise of Communism with the aim of peacemaking and reconciliation; (3) enhance a better understanding between evangelicals and Orthodox as well as Roman Catholic Christians; (4) deepen unity between all those who confess Christ as Lord and Savior; (5) encourage renewal in the mainstream Protestant churches which have centuries of history in our region; (6) foster the alleviation of human suffering; (7) evaluate the appropriateness of Western and other Christian activities in our countries; (8) establish financially viable ministries in the midst of the emerging economies of our region; and (9) take our place in partnership with others in the world-wide cross-cultural missionary task.

Toward a Council for Evangelical Theological Education and Leadership Development in Post-Communist Europe

19. In light of our joint commitment to what our Lord is doing in our part of the world and giving full attention to the values and priorities set forth above, we as responsible stewards of our unique opportunities and available resources resolve to establish and strengthen a cooperative permanent capacity for Christian leadership development in our region. For these reasons, we propose:

20. (1) To create a ‘Council for Evangelical Theological Education and Leadership Development in Post-Communist Europe.’ The Council will be a network of ministries and institutions that are committed to equipping Christian leaders in East Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union. It will link theological institutions and leadership training efforts in the region, and will endeavor also to facilitate and coordinate the involvement of international partners, supporters, and funders with the network.

21. (2) To take steps under the auspices of the Council:

22. a.) To establish a cooperative post-graduate program for faculty development and scholarly research in the region. This effort would need to include assistance in preparing the initial faculty/mentor complement for such program(s).

23. b.) To encourage bi-lateral links between emerging Christian leadership development efforts in the region and existing counterparts elsewhere with a view toward faculty exchanges, degree validations, and/or joint programs.

24. c.) To create collections of primary teaching resources in the relevant languages, encouraging and assisting their publication.

25. d.) To promote international support for the development of promising theological institutions and ministry training centers in the region. Assistance could include financial support for staff development, facilities, library, etc., along with consultancy on strategic planning, curriculum design, and local financial resourcing.

26. By God’s grace, and by God’s grace only, we intend to move forward from this place with shared faith in the triune God, shared fellowship in Christian ministry and service, shared understanding of the task of true theological education, shared cognizance of what this means in post-Communist Europe, shared vision for cooperative and collaborative action in nurturing Christian leaders, and shared hope for the impact that our churches might have in this needy and yet promising region of the world, and beyond it, because of godly, willing, and capable leaders.

27. We invite all who embrace the Christian faith to join us in asking Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to make it so.

October 7, 1994. Oradea, Romania

THE DECLARATION OF OSIJEK

“FREEDOM AND JUSTICE IN CHURCH STATE RELATIONSHIPS”

1. Preamble

We 85 participants representing the continental bodies in Africa, Asia and Latin America which form the International Fellowship of Evangelical Mission Theologians – with associates from North America and Europe – met at Osijek, Yugoslavia form 10 – 16 April in the 4^th Conference of this Fellowship (following Bangkok, Thailand, 1982; Tlayacapan, Mexico, 1984; and Kabare, Kenya, 1987).

Among our number were professional theologians, missiologists, pastors, including two bishops representing large dioceses of Africa, sociologists, politicians, lawyers and social activists. We came together as persons with an evangelical commitment from our contexts of mission. We learned together, shared insights and encouraged one another in our common witness to the relevance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the struggles for freedom and justice in the world.

We had with us the Second Vice-President of Peru, an evangelical Christian who participated in all the sessions. His presence made us vividly aware that in several countries around the world, particularly in Africa and Latin America, Evangelical Christians are beginning to be actively involved in the political life of their nations. This underlined the significance of our theme.

We have reflected on the theme: “Freedom and Justice in Church-State Relations,” with special emphasis on the new found political freedom of the peoples of Eastern Europe, the rights of ethnic minorities to exist and express their own identities, and the problems facing religious minorities.

We visited Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist and Pentecostal Churches, met their leaders and experienced the complex relationship between religion, ethnic identity and state organization in a historical moment of great fluidity. In this context, we reflected on the following issues:

2. The missiological implications of the collapse of bureaucratic socialism in Eastern Europe

The invitation to meet in Osijek, Yugoslavia was extended at our third consultation in Kabare, Kenya in August 1987. We could not have envisaged at that time that as part of this conference we would be welcomed to a civic reception by the first democratically elected mayor of Osijek in nearly 50 years, that public prayer would be said in the City Chambers at the conclusion of the reception, nor that our proceedings would attract the attention of the press, radio and television.

We rejoice at the increased freedom enjoyed by our sisters and brothers in Yugoslavia. We realize that there have been many sides to the witness of the church in Eastern Europe. Some churches of different traditions in Eastern Europe were at the forefront of the changes in 1989. Other churches were more hesitant to take part in the changes. We also wish to pay tribute to the churches which suffered in Eastern Europe and recognize this witness of the servant church to the cross of Christ as authentic discipleship.

It is also remarkable that the historic changes in the region took place for the most part relatively peacefully and in the eyes of many Christians this was directly related to sustained prayers. There is an urgent and continuing need for a revival of prayer and spirituality, not only among Christian in Eastern Europe, but wherever Christians have to cope with oppressive political or religious regimes.

In the new situation, the Eastern European churches are facing new challenges. They need not only to adapt their commitment to evangelism in creative ways that respond to the new conditions, but also to rediscover their responsibility for socio-economic realities. They need to place their “theology of martyrdom” within the broader concept of uncompromising Christian discipleship in all the spheres of life.

The challenge to churches in the West is to collaborate as servant-partners with their Eastern sisters in a fashion that is supportive and not religiously imperialistic. Another concern for the Western Church is to be careful to refrain from introducing uncritically Western values and ways which may be culturally inappropriate for others. Nevertheless, material and personal resources and visions of faith may be shared in a way that glorifies God.

While recognizing the urgent opportunity for involvement in Eastern Europe, this must not be at the expense of the continued partnership with Two-Thirds World churches. We urge Western churches to protest against the tendency of their governments to divert aid from the third world to Eastern Europe rather than increase their overall aid budgets. We continue to affirm that aid alone should not be seen as a substitute for needed global structural economic changes.

Not only has the barrier fallen between the so-called first and second worlds, but also between second and third worlds, inasmuch as the countries of Eastern Europe are increasingly facing similar economic and social problems as are plaguing the third world. While we celebrate the breaking down of totalitarian regimes and the attempt at democratization in Eastern Europe, we are deeply concerned with the simplistic proclamation of the victory of capitalism which, when coupled with unjust political systems, has had such a devastating effect in the Two-Thirds World. The collapse of state socialism in Eastern Europe cannot be regarded by Christians as a simple legitimation of capitalism, but on the contrary has shattered dreams in parts of the world where communism provided an alternative idealistic vision. It has also led to a vacuum of economic alternatives to capitalism as a global project. It is all the more urgent for Christians to develop Christian and advocate economic principles and models such as are presented in the Oxford Declaration on Christian Faith and Economics of January 1990.

At the same time, these recent events in Easter Europe have strengthened the movement for freedom and democracy in other parts of the world, especially in Africa. While the movement for more participatory forms of government in Africa predates perestroika, it has received significant encouragement for it, thus enabling a Christian view of persons in society to find a fuller expression in the political order.

The missiological implications also need careful discernment. The European collapse of bureaucratic socialism does not invalidate the concern for justice in a holistic understanding of the Christian mission. Liberation theology has often been castigated for dependence on Marxist analysis and social objectives. But its concern for the poor and for the earthing of theology in practical engagement on their behalf has biblical roots which do not depend on Marx.

There is a long tradition of Christian social criticism before Marx and Christian theologians need not be beholden to Marx for their social vision. Many questions abut the negative social consequences of capitalism were raised by Christians before Marx proposed a systematic critique of it. Totalitarian state socialism’s failed answers do not invalidate those questions or release us from the task of finding biblical responses.

Bureaucratic socialism sought at some point to enshrine values which have independent validity in biblical revelation, especially justice in the distribution of goods and services in society. It behoves those committed to such values as a dimension of biblical mission to find more appropriate ways of expressing them in the changed economic, social and political directions of increased freedom. Neither freedom nor justice should be at each other’s expense.

3. Religious freedom in the context of a dominant religion

In creation God has granted to man and woman the freedom to respond to his love in obedience or not. Coercion has no place in the opening story of the world until humanity has made his own response to the Creator/s world. Following from this aspect of the biblical doctrine of humanity, Christians must be prepared to allow the genuine religious pluralism in society. It is unacceptable for state systems to espouse any one religious expression in such a way that other religious groups find that their God-given rights to life, participation in society, and to believe and propagate their faith, are politically or socially denied.

In whatever way the relation of church and state be understood, whether as complete separation, or where religion has a formal place in the life of the civil society, what is required of the state is religious neutrality. This means that if religious conflict arises, the state must ensure that the dominant religion is not allowed to oppress minority religions. The state must not favor one religion or allow its own apparatus to be co-opted by dominant religious control, or interfere by the religious freedoms of any group. In short, the state must provide the social and political framework which guarantees the unhindered exercise of religious freedom. Countries which are signatories of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights should enforce it in order to make this a reality.

Religions also have self-limiting responsibilities in relation to the state. The conference received papers from different contexts where religious domination of the state leads to oppression. In several Latin American countries, Roman Catholicism, with state permission, has severely restricted the religious freedom of other minority religious communities. In some Islamic contexts, Islamic dominance has continued to be exercised over religious minority through the application of the historical dhimma system, in varying degrees in different Islamic states, from very severe restrictions on religious freedom and human rights to rather milder practices. We have also heard concern from several East European countries where the predominant “national” Orthodox churches claim monopoly over religious lives of their nations and discriminate against Protestant minorities. And it must not be overlooked that Protestantism, sometime with clear evangelical orientation, has served in some contexts as legitimation for oppression.

Nevertheless, movements based on protestant theology and ethics have sometimes contributed to the break-up of the dominance of religiously totalitarian regimes and traditions. When this has occurred, the resulting situation imposes limits on government. It can no longer impose particular world-views or social projects against the will of the people. Yet clearly, evangelicals cannot agree with a relativization of moral values which we believe to be grounded in biblical revelation. How are the values of Christian faith to be brought to bear on public policy? Another important area, which illustrates the clash between desire for social pluralism and the rejection of ethical or religious relativism, is the matter of religious education in public (state) schools.

In the interests of freedom and justice, Christians must apply the Golden Rule to do to others what they would like others to do to them and ensure religious freedom to others. As Christians we confess that we have not always granted religious freedom to other religious groups living among us. We resolve to change and to defend religious freedom for all in the spirit of the Lord’s injunction to servanthood.

4. Biblical faith and the desacralisation of power

The recognition that all authority comes from God relativises all human use of power. Political arrangements have a tendency to sacralise human power, that is, to claim a divine status or sanction, which is idolatrous but which achieves the self-legitimation of those who wield it.

However, the biblical tradition point to a quite different notion of power. In the Old Testament, the centrality of the teaching that Yahweh alone is king, landowner and commander, relativises all human power, political, economic and military. In the social system that God established in Israel, power was diffused in a plurality of elders and the kinship network. Centralized kinship was at first resisted, and when it came, was clearly set under the authority of covenant law (Deut. 17.14-20). Kings were held accountable by the prophets to God’s requirement that they should exercise justice and defend the powerless. It was the abuse of power, socially and economically, by the ruling elite in Israel which led to the sustained prophetic indictment and to God’s wrath and judgment.

In the New Testament Jesus reaffirmed the Old Testament teaching in his own attitude and actions in relation to earthly power. He was not intimidated by earthly rulers (Luke 13.31-32). He held a notion of power which was in explicit contrast to what he saw in the world (Luke 22.24-27). He contrasted his own kingdom with that of Pilate’s (John 18.16). His cross was the defeat of the demonic forces which masquerade behind the destructive exercise of power in the world (Col. 2.15). The followers of Jesus must take the cross seriously in their political involvement as they overcome the love of power by the power of love and are empowered by him in their powerlessness. Such a view of Christian political involvement cuts across all authoritarian personality cults of the strong.

For the industrial nations of the North, democratic forms of government appear at present to be the best way of preventing the sacralization of power. Further investigation is needed into how existing “democracies” could become more truly democratic by allowing more effectively for the participation of the marginalized. At the same time, we need to examine what other forms of political arrangements would be appropriate instruments of preventing the sacralization of power in other cultures and socio-economic contexts.

5. Ethnic identities and Christian peoplehood

Ethnic diversity is part of God’s creativity and it is God’s plan for all creation to glorify him. Therefore, the reaches of ethnic variety can be affirmed where it gives glory to God.

God’s creative and redemptive intention is for all peoples to become part of the people of God. This purpose, however, is hindered by human fallenness, as a result of which ethnicity tends to be absolutized and thereby is distorted into idolatrous ethno-centrism. God’s redemptive work dethrones all idolatries and therefore when a person becomes a member of the people of God through Christ, a new identity is received. This new identity in Christ relativises every ethnic identity, but does not efface it or invalidate its cultural expression. Citizenship in the Kingdom of God is the only absolute, non-negotiable identity for the Christian, besides which all other levels of identity are mobile and may be freely affirmed or freely laid aside for the sake of the Gospel. Paul could affirm or set aside his Jewish identity according to the missionary demands of his context (1Cor. 9.19-23) and in any case counted it as wholly secondary compared to his new identity in Christ (Phil.3.4-9).

The Gospel affirms ethnic identity by enabling the Christian to rejoice in it for its intrinsic created goodness, to subordinate it to the Lordship of Christ, and to use it for the service of God and the neighbor. The church, therefore, which includes all ethnic groups, is a sign of God’s multi-ethnic people and kingdom. It should affirm healthy ethnicity and the positive values of nationhood where these do not either become idolatrous towards God or oppressive towards fellow human beings. In the fallen world, however, the church has the duty to challenge states which manipulate ethnicity, by exalting it into a national idolatry, or by using it as a criterion for denial of human rights, and states which marginalize ethnic minorities by tolerating discriminatory and exploitative forces in society. Such action for freedom and justice in relation to ethnicity can only come from a church which is not itself captive to ethnic idolatry theologically, culturally or politically.

There exist in our world many submerged ethnic identities which have resulted from the artificial drawing of state boundaries after conquest, colonization and wars. Part of Christian mission must include working for the protection, recovery and re-emergence of such groups to the human rights and dignity, including the right to homeland and statehood, to which their ethnicity is as entitled as any others. However, we recognize painfully, that in some parts of the world, separate ethnicity has been spuriously promoted as a tool of oppression. In such contexts it is superficial to deal with ethnicity questions without regard to issues of social, economic and political freedom and justice.

The mixing of ethnic groups is not in itself wrong, theologically or culturally. In the course of history, however, many ethnically mixed populations have resulted from processes which were fundamentally unjust and oppressive. Many examples of these are found in American (North and South) and Caribbean nations through centuries of conquest, exploitation of native populations and plantation slavery. Missiologically, however, such population of mixed ethnicity often function positively as vehicles for the trans-cultural spread of the Gospel. Biblical examples of this include the role of Galileans, Samaritans and Hellenistic Jews (all ethnic mixtures) in the missionary expansion of NT Christianity.

Furthermore, God’s incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in Galilee indicates his opinion to identify with all minister among mixed and marginalized population.

We celebrate the fact that the Gospel and the Christian community has from the beginning proved able to cross ethnic boundaries to share the message of God’s love. This points beyond merely peaceful toleration towards genuine ethnic reconciliation and shalom which Paul, in Ephesians 2, saw as the heart of the Gospel. Christians need to face up to the existence of real wounds to be healed between Christians of different ethnicity living in the same context, even when they share the same commitment to mission.

There is also a need to be willing to speak the truth about the past. Christian must encourage fellow Christians, and also wider ethnically divided communities, to re-examine their history, with the willingness to look at it from the point of view of the other group. There must be a healing of historical memories by a commitment to acknowledge the truth, to seek forgiveness for historical wrongs, to seek to correct those wrongs as far as possible, and to repent of the perpetuation of unbiblical attitudes based on ancient ethnic hostilities.

6. The need for evangelical political theology

We note with joy the increasing degree of more active political engagement on the part of evangelicals, in Latin America and elsewhere. For the first time in the history of several nations, evangelicals are being elected to high government office. The Second Vice-President of Peru was among our number at the conference. The President and Vice-President of Guatemala are also evangelical believers.

Recognizing, however, the need for Christians in politics to be guided by biblically based political theology and ethics, there is an urgent need to develop such resources. Evangelical political praxis must be based on and critiqued by deep reflection on the social dimensions of biblical revelation. This is a task not merely for theologians but for the whole people of God.

A political theology provides answers to questions such as: what is the purpose of government? What is the role of force in government and how should it be used? What moral values should be legislated and what should not, and what are the criteria for distinguishing? Is there a transcendent norm above the state? Without a political theology that answers such questions, political engagement is superficial, often misguided and counterproductive.

Many Christian traditions have an extensive history of systematic reflection on the relationship between Christian faith an public life and have developed sophisticated political theologies. If the recent worldwide evangelical involvement in politics is to be biblical, substantial and of more than passing significance, we must interact with the political theologies from these other Christian traditions and ground our own political activity in a political theology that flows from evangelical faith. And we need to work at that task in ways that both emerge from our unique social contexts and are accountable to the worldwide body of Christ.

The following affirmations illustrate the kind of claims that such a political theology might make:

1. It is God’s will that there should be governing authorities within nations. The purpose of government is to promote social wholeness and wellbeing for its citizens, and to prevent anarchy. To this end those in authority should be reminded that they are servants of God whose duty is to work for the good of the citizens and to promote good relations with other nations. It is their duty to restrain evil by punishing evil-doers and by upholding justice.

2. Basic human rights (e.g. the right to life, religious and political freedom and the right to share fairly in society’s material goods) come from God, not the state, which can only recognize and nurture them.

3. The church must be free of state interference, but the church as an institution must not dominate government. At the same time, the church must exercise its prophetic role and religious values should have free reign in evaluating and critiquing public life.

4. Since God measures every society by how it treats the poorest and weakest, the voiceless and marginalized (Prov.31.1-9), it is an important responsibility for the government to create just conditions within which the welfare of such groups can be actively promoted.

5. “As a model, modern political democracy is characterized by limited government of a temporary character, by the division of power within the government, the distinction between state and society, pluralism, the rule of law, institutionalization of freedom rights (including free and regular elections), and a significant amount of non-governmental control of property. We recognize that no political system is directly prescribed by scripture, but we believe that biblical values and historical experience call Christian to work for the adequate participation of all people in the decision making processes on questions that affect their lives.” (Oxford Declaration, paragraph 54).

6. “We recognize that no particular economic system is directly prescribed by scripture. Recent history suggests that a dispersion of ownership of the means of production is a significant component of democracy. Monopolistic ownership, either by the state, large economic institutions, or oligarchies is dangerous. Widespread ownership, either in a market economy or a mixed system tends to decentralize power and prevent totalitarianism.” (Oxford Declaration, paragraph 56).

7. The results of political engagement are significant but limited. Political activity does not bring the kingdom of God, nor is it the only way to change society. Nevertheless, it is a vital activity by which Christians can bring the values of the kingdom of God in our nations.

Conclusion: A call to prayer

We recognize that in our engagement in struggles for freedom and justice in the world, we fight “against not flesh and blood, but against the rulers, authorities and powers of this dark world, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6.12). Hence prayer becomes a necessary dimension of our engagement. Freedom and justice are signs of the kingdom of God; through prayer, we receive strength and hope in believing that God’s kingdom will come. Through fervent intercessory prayer, we are enabled to participate in the struggles of those for whom we thus seek divine help.

In the light of our findings at our conference, therefore, we urge fervent prayer on behalf of the following.

1. Evangelical Christians and all those who suffer any form of persecution as a result of seeking to be bridge people and peacemakers in the ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia.

2. Evangelical Christians and all who suffer any form of depravation and oppression in contexts of dominating Islam in parts of Africa and Asia.

3. Evangelical Christians and all those who suffer under the conditions of repressive Roman Catholicism in several countries of Latin America.

4. Evangelical Christian leaders and all those who endure hardship and persecution as a consequence of seeking to promote those conditions in which freedom and justice will flourish in the lives of their nations.

In the expectant hope of coming of God’s kingdom of freedom and justice promised in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, we pray, “THY KINGDOM COME.”

INFEMIT

Chairman rev Dr Rene Padilla (Argentina)

Vice Chairman Bishop David Gitari (Kenya)

Executive Director Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India)

Treasurer David Bussau (Australia)

c.o P.O.Box 8423, 60 Karamchand Layout, Lingarajapuram, Bangalore 560084, India

APPENDIX ONE: Catholicism and Society in Latin America

The Roman Catholic Church was very influential in the formation of the Latin American nations because her missionary work was closely linked to the Spanish and Portuguese conquest in the 16^th century. During three centuries of colonial domination, this church dominated society because she had control of culture through education, and was also powerful in economic and political life. The commitment of Spain and Portugal to build in the America a new Christendom free from the inroads of Protestantism led to the establishment of the Inquisition which controlled religious and social life.

In the process of Independence, between 1810 and 1850, the Church identified with the Spanish crown and became a conservative institution in society. All through the 19^th century, though the new nations kept a place of privilege for the Catholic Church, a tension between the church and state developed, especially with the initiatives of liberal governments to curb the power of the church.

Protestantism came to Latin America taking advantage of the space created by liberal governments and established a de facto alliance with them. The growth of Protestantism was an evidence of the spiritual hanger of the Latin American masses that could not be satisfied by a declining church that suffered from a chronic shortage of clergy and falling popularity among the masses because of her alliance with the ruling classes.

During the 20^th century, slowly but steadily, the church ceased to be the state church. This process was first successful Mexico, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. The Protestant minorities, however, were discriminated against and persecuted bloodily in Peru, Bolivia and Colombia, but in the 1960s religious freedom was increasingly achieved due to the rapid growth of Protestantism, the liberalization of governments and the liberalizing trends after the Vatican II Council.

Contemporary studies have proved that the Catholic missionary work of the 16^th century was not completed. In many places it was superficial. This explains the need of the Catholic church to depend on the protection of the state to her survival and maintenance of her privileges. The gigantic migration to the cities has been a significant factor, among others, of the modernization process. In face of it, Protestant churches have offered better pastoral alternatives to the masses, as they continue to grow. Protestants hope that the Catholic church will adapt to life in a pluralistic society, but restrictions on religious minorities continue in several countries. However, the doctrine of the church about her position in society as well as her relationship to the state is based upon her self-understanding as the only true church and the deep-rooted tradition of domination in Spain and Portugal, and these two elements continue to be determinative for her attitudes.

APPENDIX TWO: Freedom and Justice in Islamic States

Historically, Islam as a whole was never prepared, either in theory or practice, to accord full equality of those of another faith. The dhimma or melet system formulated in the 1^st century of the Islamic era and defined in the so-called “Pact of Uman,” in its various versions places severe restrictions and handicaps on non-Muslim minorities. In the modern world, these are applied in varying degrees in different Islamic nations. Islamic fundamentalists, on the one hand, demand a total return in the Shari’ah and all other restrictions of the dhimma; while moderates, on the other, are willing to lessen these restrictions, if not do away with them together.

Thus, for example, in Saudi Arabia no non-Islamic worship services outside embassy grounds are allowed. In Iran, since the 1979 revolution, thousands of Bahias have been executed for religious apostasy from Islam, and both Jews and Christians have been harassed, jailed and in some cases, killed. In Sudan, the efforts of the Islamic majority to impose the Shari’ah on all have led to an on-going civil war which began decades ago. The Egyptian Church, which dates back to the 1^st century A.D., continues to live today under a series of legal and social restrictions. Even in Turkey, there are continuing reports of discriminations against non-Muslims, a hangover from its Ottoman past, although these are prohibited by a fully secular constitution. Finally, in almost all Islamic states, non-Muslims are not given the freedom to change their faith. Many more examples could be given.

The world Islamic community is rightly concerned with the rights of Muslim minorities in non-Islamic lands. Again it must be noted that Islam is often concerned to instill the highest ideals of justice and tolerance. We would therefore like to ask the Muslim community to recognize more adequately the logic of their concerns. If they are concerned with the freedom to practice and propagate their fate and to ensure that Muslim minorities in non-Islamic lands are not treated as second-class citizens, they must be prepared to grant non-Muslims in Islamic states the same freedom and equality. No Muslim living in non-Islamic lands would happily live under the dhimma system applied in reverse. Therefore, Muslims must be helped to understand that they cannot ask for what they are not prepared to concede.

At the same time, it is recognized that Christians have often failed to provide adequately for the freedom and justice of the religious minorities, including Muslims, in our societies. In recognition to these concerns, we propose:

1. That Christian must make a diligent effort to understand the historical grievances and present-day concerns of Muslims and initiate a dialogic process aimed at seeking greater reconciliation between the two communities.

2. That all members of the world community be challenged to make a genuine attempt to implement fully the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (ratified by all Islamic states except for Saudi Arabia and Yemen) which provides fully for religious freedom and equality of all, irrespective of religious affiliation.

3. The non-Islamic nations (especially those in the West) should initiate an international consultation with the Organization of Islamic countries with the view of working toward an accord similar to Helsinki Accords, as the best means to safeguard the rights and freedoms of both Muslims and non-Muslims.

PARTICIPANTS

The Osijek Conference was attended by the following participants. They took part in drawing up the declaration but did not sign the declaration individually.

AFRICA

Rev Dr Robert Aboagye-Mensah (Ghana)
Deaconess Eugenia Adoyo (Kenya)
Rev Dr Kwame Bediako (Ghana)
Rt Rev Dr D M Gitari (Kenya)
Rev Graham Kings (Kenya/UK)
Rt Rev Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo (Tanzania)
Caesar Molebatsi (South Africa)
Kalambo Mutambo (Yugoslavia/Ghana)
Moss Ntlha (South Africa)
Rev Dr Cyril Okorocha (Nigeria)
Rev Jeremy Pemberton (Zaire/UK)
Dr Daniel Wambudta (Nigeria)

ASIA

David Bussau
Rev Dr Wilson Chow (Hong Kong)
Dr David Lim (Philippines)
Ms Melba Maggay (Philippines)
Goh Keat Peng (Malaysia)
Dr Bong Rin Ro (Korea)
Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India)
C B Samuel (India)
Rev Hwa Yung (Malaysia)

EUROPE

David Adeney (UK)
Th Dr Jaraj Bandy (Czechoslovakia)
Dr Aleksander Birvis (Yugoslavia)
Rev Dr Tim Deaborn (UK/USA)
Dr Hans-Christian Diedrich (Germany)
David Dorusek (Yugoslavia)
Mark Jantzen (Germany/USA)
Dr Goran Janzon (Sweden)
Paul Jarosz (Poland)
Ms Maria Kaissling (Germany)
Rev Andrew Kirk (UK)
Dusan Kljajic (Yugoslavia)
Zeljko Krivic (Yugoslavia)
Dr Henryk Krol (Poland)
Magda Ksenija (Yugoslavia)
Rev Dr Peter Kuzmic (Yugoslavia)
Walter Lang (Germany)
Angela Ludwig (Germany)
Anatoli Mamalat (USSR)
Hovan Martin (Yugoslavia)
Jovan Nikolic (Yugoslavia)
Ms Pia Haase-Leh (Germany)
Beniamin Octavian Poplacean (Romania)
John Victor Selle (Norway)
Rev Dr Christopher Sudgen (UK)
Karel Taschner (Czechoslovakia)
Rev Istvan Thuroczy (Hungary)
Dr Hans Visser (Netherlands)
Dr Miroslav Volf (Yugoslavia)
Dr Judith Volf (Yugoslavia/USA)
Rev Dr Joachim Wietzke (Germany)
Heinz Wollesky (Germany)
Rev Dr Christopher Wright (UK)
Peter Zimmerling (Germany)
Rev Rolf Zwick (Germany)

LATIN AMERICA

Ms Carmen Perez Camargo (Mexico)
Dr Guillermo Cook (Costa Rica)
Dr Samuel Escobar (Peru)
Dr Carlos Garcia (Peru)
Humberto Lagos-Schuffeneger (Chile)
Dr Enio Mueller (Brazil)
Las Newman (Jamaica)
Rev Dr C Rene Padilla (Argentina)|
Dr Ruben Tito Paredes (Peru)
Dr Pablo Perez (Mexico)
Dr Pedro Arana Quiroz (Peru)
Victor Rey (Chile)
Juan D Rogers (Argentina)
Dr Edesio Sanchez (Costa Rica)
Dr Valdir Steuernagel (Brazil)

NORTH AMERICA

Jonathan J Bonk (Canada)
Joel Carpenter (USA)
Dr William Dryness (USA)
Dr Ward Gasque (USA)
Mrs Laurel Gasque (USA)
Dr Daniel Sanchez (USA)
Dr Walter Sawatsky (USA)
Dr Gerald Shenk (USA)
Rev Dr Ronald Sider (USA)
Dr Darryl Trimiew (USA)
Robin Wainwright (USA)

Celebrating and Assessing Twenty Years of Freedom

People everywhere long for and celebrate freedom. Marking the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of Marxist-based totalitarian systems, which ruled for decades over the eastern part of Europe, Evandeoski Teoloski Fakultet in Osijek, Croatia is organising an international consultation on “Challenges for Church and Society in Post-communist Contexts. Celebrating and Assessing Twenty Years of Freedom”.

The dramatic tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the most powerful symbol of the division of Europe, signified the end of atheistic one-party regimes that kept under their grips hundreds of millions, caused indescribable suffering and countless victims. In addition to abuse of political power, economic devastation and ecological disaster, this oppressive ideology violated human rights, destroyed creativity, personal initiative and social responsibility, and created hopelessness and spiritual emptiness.

Twenty years after the demise of communist systems in Europe, people in Eastern Europe and beyond need to come to terms with the lasting effects of this failed social experiment, to assess the painful transition from totalitarianism and centralised economies towards open, democratic and just societies and to discover where hope resides for the future. Christians are called to join hands with people in all cultures and communities to work for the wellbeing of all citizens and shape a better world for generations to come.

The organisers invite scholars, educators and church leaders to join in the process of reflection and planning leading to this interdisciplinary, ethically motivated, international gathering. We live in an interdependent global world and everything we think and do has consequences affecting communities worldwide. Therefore, let us bring good news to the poor, heal the broken-hearted and announce release to captives and freedom to prisoners, proclaiming that the time has come when the Lord saves his people (Isaiah 61:1-2).

The consultation will take place 28-31 October 2009 at Evandeoski Teoloski Fakultet in Osijek, Croatia.

(For further information and interaction see www.evtos.hr and http://20yearsoffreedom.wordpress.com)

As we have expressed in our press release, the Osijek consultation “Celebrating and Assessing 20 Years of Freedom,” 29-31 October 2009 is intended as a collective effort of “reflection and planning, leading to this interdisciplinary, ethically motivated international gathering.”

Therefore, we invite you to join us in this effort by suggesting:

- topics for discussion
- names of experts that could contribute to the conversation
- church and community leaders who could benefit from the exposure and interaction in this consultation
- potential sources of funding
- any other ideas that might enrich our conversation

Please add your suggestions as comments to this post. We appreciate your contribution.
We are in this together. This consultation will be as good as we will make it to be.