Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith in Go’d the Only uniting all

The Second Vatican Council confirms in the first sentence of the Preface of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum (Paul VI 1965) that seeing and hearing the word of Go’d, the logos of life (1 John 1, 1) that is Jesus Christ, listening and believing the word of Go’d and then proclaiming and announcing, serves the “common fellowship” among the believers and “with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ” (Dei Verbum 1). Believing in the logos of life, hearing and listening to Jesus Christ in the Scripture and proclaiming faith in Him, creates a fellowship, that connects us to Go’d and to each other.

Religious freedom and the confession of the common faith in Jesus Christ make of the believers a common fellowship, a kind of community. To this community of believers in Jesus Christ belong all Christians, the Orthodox Churches, Christians from the Churches of the Reformation and from the Roman Catholic Church. These Christians are women, men and queer believers. How do these women, men and queer believers experience their faith? Neither Dignitatis Humanae, nor Unitatis Redintegratio or Orientalium Ecclesiarum bother about gender, ethnicity, and class in the context of the believers who hear, comprehend, speak and live their faith. Feminist theologians assert that gender, ethnicity, and class are part of those cultural, social and biographical variations that directly influence the understanding, practice and speaking of faith (Nussberger, Danielle. 2019. “Catholic feminist thought.” In The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, edited by Lewis Ayres and Medi Ann Volpe, assistant editor Thomas L. Humphries, 833–849. 833. Oxford: Oxford University Press). Women and queer voices “are equally indispensable for articulating and living Christian faith” as the voices of the male celibate bishops and theologians, yet these voices are ignored by the Second Vatican Council (ibid). The only woman who gets attention by the documents of the Second Vatican Council is the Virgin Mary. There is not a single reference to a woman Doctor of the Church or to a woman Apostle. The life of Catherine of Siena (1347–1380) testifies of the conviction of Catherine “that she was called to preach and to give Church leaders guidance in political affairs” (ibid. 843). The lives of Catherine of Siena, of Thérèse of Lisieux (1873–1897), another Doctor of the Church, and of so many holy women official Catholic authorities picture as that of pious women, as passive and private. Nussberger protests, Thérèse’s childlike simplicity of faith that “matures in her trials of God-forsakenness during her final illness” gives authentic testimony to “a God hidden and revealed” (ibid.). It is true that “the historical settings in which the Scripture took shape were patriarchal, and that this frequently led to the unfortunate absence of women’s voices in the communication of God’s word” (ibid. 837). The woman who anointed Jesus’s feet at Bethany (Mark 14, 3–9) is unnamed “though Jesus insists that she will be remembered” (ibid). This woman “stands as a symbol of all the forgotten women whom God remembers and whom contemporary women must never disregard; for, they knew Jesus, they followed him faithfully to the cross, they saw him after he had risen, and thereafter they testified to his identity” (ibid). Not only the twelve were with Jesus “going about from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God” (Luke 8, 1) but also women were with Him who had been healed. Mary Magdalene (Luke 8,2) “and Joanna the wife of Cuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others” (Luke 8, 3). Finally, we get some names from Luke, he names the women who found their physical, psychic, social and spiritual integrity in the company of the healer Jesus and they follow him proclaiming the just world of Go’d. All Gospels testify of women following Jesus to the cross. Mark remembers Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less, and Joses, and Salome (Mark 15, 40). A few women are remembered with their names, but there were “many other women who had come up with Him to Jerusalem” (Mark 15, 41). Feminist theologians who remember women’s past experiences and construct women’s complex history aim at opening a new path into the future, working for a socio-cultural conversion of contemporary structures of oppression and continuing discrimination. Unfortunately, in 2020 CE feminist theologians, feminist women and queer as feminist men are still not getting the institutional support of the Roman Catholic hierarchy of popes, bishops and clergy for realizing within the Roman Catholic Church the discipleship of equals that Fiorenza Schüssler had been fighting for since the 1980s (ibid. 837).

The “language we should be using to name and call upon God in whom we believe” constitutes the most fundamental and serious concern of feminist systematic theology (ibid. 838). The Council Fathers of the Second Vatican Council were not conscious of the male celibate socio-cultural context that was determined and dominated by white males. These celibate males did not reflect their Go’d language and male images as patriarchal symbols of a social hierarchy that discriminates female and queer understandings of religious experiences. With Dei Verbum we can assess as the official teaching of the Church the feminist claim that Go’d “reveals God’s self through the creatures God had made, and who, on the other hand, remains hidden” (ibid. 839). Feminists therefore do not advocate “the exclusive use of feminine imagery of God”, instead they protest the suppression of the use of feminine imagery for God (ibid). A fundamental claim of feminist theologians concerns the social realization of the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women expressing their faith, their faith-experiences and their faith concepts.

Nussberger demonstrates this point with sentences of feminist systematic theologians speaking of the salvific mission of Jesus (ibid. 840–41). Jesus’s “ministry to the poor, the sinners, and the socially marginalized” proclaims salvation from the social sins of sexism, racism and classism, and redeems humanity from sin by promoting “freedom from concrete situations of suffering, oppression and abuse” (ibid. 840). Jesus’s mission concerns the healing of “the oppressor and the oppressed”. African American, Hispanic, African, and Asian women confront their experience of suffering and oppression with “the biblical Jesus and see resonances between their quests for justice and liberation, and the salvation that Jesus has achieved through his life, death, and resurrection” (ibid. 840).

In the context of “God’s saving design” Nostra Aetate 4,2 not only compares the Christians to “wild shoots” which “had been grafted onto the olive tree” (Romains 11,17–24) and assess that the Jews are co-heirs of salvation. Nostra Aetate 4, 2 also assesses the Roman Catholic Church’s belief that salvation has to do with reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles and that the cross of Jesus Christ brought this peace (Ephesians 2, 14–16). The claim of reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, peace between all those peoples believing in Go’d like Abraham, certainly constitutes a validity-condition of the claim of salvation by Jesus Christ. Nostra Aetate 4, 8 further claims that the social choice of Jesus who suffered the cross was a realization of love and confesses “the cross of Christ as the sign of God’s all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows”. Christians confess the cross as the realization of a social choice for love that confronts the hatred and violence of integrity destructing and integrity destructed social choices of women, men and queer (Ephesians 2, 14–16). The fight against sexism, racism and classism is part of the social realization of equal dignity, freedom and rights that follow from the Law of the Spirit that is love. The Second Vatican Council has no word against discrimination of women, men and queer and therefore we have to insist on this social realization of love as part of the realization of the just world of Go’d. Nostra Aetate does not claim the end of discrimination of all kinds, of women, men and queer, of different religions, cultures and worldviews. Dei Verbum 17, 1 assesses the New Testament as “The word of God, which is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe (Romains 1,16)”. The fight against the discrimination of women, men and queer as part of salvation and part of the word of Go’d is not considered in Dei Verbum. Dignitatis Humanae 11,2 again assesses the cross of Jesus Christ as “the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men” without understanding “true freedom for men” as the realization of equal dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer. Referring again to Romains 1, 16, Dignitatis Humanae 11, 3 proclaims the faith of the Apostles “the Gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation for all who believe” and fails to insist on preaching salvation as a call to love for the believers, that is also the call to realize their equal dignity, freedom and rights. Instead, Dignitatis Humanae 13,1 puts the care for salvation exclusively into the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council claims that the celibate male bishops and cardinals under the absolutist powers of the pope will care for the salvation of the women, men and queer believers. The suppressors of salvation are considered as safeguards of peace and justice, who realize the equal dignity, freedom and rights of the faithful. This is a contradiction and Roman Catholic women, men and queer claim a division of powers within their Church.

Feminist theologians insist on the “continuity between the covenantal theology of the Hebrew Scriptures and the soteriology of the New Testament” (ibid). Further, we must not forget that Jewish theologians treat much the same questions as Christians. The Rabbis studied and studied the Torah. They prayed, meditated, discussed and wrote comments on the Torah, the constitution of Israel that was written under divine inspiration. Rabbis would discuss, comment and write on theological themes like reconciliation, forgiveness of sins and new life, redemption, atonement, justification, salvation and new creation (Segal, Alan F. 2015. “The Second Temple Period.” In The Cambridge Guide to Jewish History, Religion, and Culture, edited by Judith R. Baskin and Kenneth Seeskin, 34–57. 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Taking seriously the soteriological hopes of Exodus and the annual celebration of it, we have to be clear as Christians that redemption and salvation is not yet finished. It is a central aspect of the rule of scriptural exegesis in Judaism that is of the Mekhilta, that the Passover Festival not only concerns the commemorating of the deliverance from the bondage in Egypt, commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2005. Kontexte der Freiheit. Konzepte der Befreiung bei Paulus und im rabbinischen Judentum. 56. Verlag W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart).

Taking the Christian faith-sentences in the New Testament seriously, we must be clear about the fact that there is the promise and hope of a second coming of Christ. In Luke 21, 28 we learn that Jesus Christ announced to his disciples his second coming. Luke narrates with the belief perspective of the “fulfilled deeds” (Luke 1, 1) that is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Redemption or salvation of the disciples will come (Bovon, Francois. 2009. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 19,28–24,53. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/4. 197. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag). In this sense “salvation that Jesus has achieved through his life, death, and resurrection” (Nussberger 2019, 840) is not yet achieved for all oppressed and suffering women, men and queer. Contemporary Jewish faith claims make this point very clear and underline the responsibility of empowering us with salvific hope for eschatological peace and justice by realizing our freedom, dignity and rights.

With the Jewish theologian Susanne Plietzsch, we have to protest against the discriminating claim of Ephesians 2, 12 that the Jews “were excluded from membership of Israel”, that they “were separate from Christ” (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2017. “Nostra aetate 4: Aufbruch und Ausgleich.” In “…mit Klugheit und Liebe”, edited by Franz Gmainer-Pranzl, Astrid Ingruber and Markus Ladstätter, 253–265.258. Linz: Wagner). We have to set straight the ambivalence of Nostra Aetate 4 that refers to Ephesians 2, 12 that discriminates the Jews and that recognizes contemporary Jewry with Romans 11, 17–24 as co-heir of salvation. Luke makes a Jewish lawyer ask Jesus concerning eternal life, concerning his eschatological hope of justice (Luke 10, 25). Jesus answered with a double question: “What is written in the Law” and what is your interpretation of it? (Luke 10, 26). The lawyer answers with Deuteronomy 6, 5 and Leviticus 19, 18: “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself”. Jesus assesses the answer of the lawyer: “You have answered right, do this and life is yours”. Luke makes Jesus join the justice function of the Law with eternal life in the way as the Rabbis claim that Go’d does not forget his creation and converts his justice actually into mercy (Hebrew: rahamim) (Plietzsch 2005, 79). The Rabbis taught that Yahweh had written down the Torah in order to give life and Yahweh will do mercy in the final judgement and liberate Israel again and for all times.

A look at an Indian Christian perspective on salvation helps understand our history as the ongoing process of Jesus’s work of salvation, if Jesus “came into this world only to repair the dent in the human face that was caused by the sin of humanity and now he is in heaven, completely unemployed and inactive, as true God and true Man, then he is no better than a museum” (Chandrakanthan, A. J. V. 1978. The God of the Indian Christian. 31. Tiruchirapalli, Madras: Good Pastor International Book Center). Jesus does not rest at the side of Go’d in some kind of eternal retreat. Christians believe the ongoing involvement of Jesus Christ in the struggle for redemption and salvation. Jesus’s “incarnational presence in the heart of creation, is to lead the world to its destiny. His redeeming presence is therefore on-going and ever growing moving and dynamic” (ibid. 30).

Christian theologians cannot speak of the concepts of atonement and redemption, forgiveness of sins, of reconciliation and justification without reference to the concept of the death and resurrection of Jesu Christ (Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1989. Etudes sur l`Epitre aux Romains. 22. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico). Justification with the first coming of Jesus Christ according to Romans 3, 21 has to be understood as reconciliation and salvific justice (Lyonnet 1989, 92). The fulfillment of revelation is Jesus Christ’s suffering at the cross for love of the Father. The acceptance of the cross is the realization of the validity-condition of the claim to validity of his love for the Father and the love of the women, men and queer that Christ loves until “he said, ‘It is fulfilled’; and bowing his head he gave up his spirit” (John 19, 30b) (Lyonnet 1989, 161). Feminist protestant theologians insist that the Gospel testifies the presence of women at the cross and at the burial and as the first testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Women are the first testimonies to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is very important to interpret the relationship of these women with the resurrected Jesus Christ as empowerment of their self-esteem and as announcement of relationships of equals that characterize the realization of the just world of Go’d (Taube, Roselies, Claudia Tietz-Buck, and Christiane Klinge. 1995. Frauen und Jesus Christus. Die Bedeutung von Christologie im Leben protestantischer Frauen. 153. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer). Reflections and meditations of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot suppress the cruelty of the cross. Most importantly, feminist theologians interpret the Gospel narrative of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as empowerment for coping with one’s actual life, its difficulties, struggles and sufferings with the perspective of taking responsibility for overcoming the troubles and standing up again with dignity, liberty and equal rights (ibid. 20). Pointing at the self-sacrificing Jesus at the cross often leads women, men and queer to uncritically bear sufferings without protest. Failing these excessive demands of patiently enduring the pressure of the sufferings from oppression, discrimination and injustice produced feelings of guilt, depression and despair. Above all, women suffered and still suffer from this self-sacrifice under moral duress that denies and makes impossible an active response through accepting and transforming suffering into healing and restored integrity (ibid). Unfortunately, western theologians interpreted for hundreds of years the cross as the achievement of Jesus sacrificing his life for the guilt of women, men and queer (ibid. 91). Instead, the Gospel invites us to follow the visions of Jesus Christ for the just world of Go’d, for relationships of mutual love and respect, and for discovering the healing powers of our bodies. We are empowered to realize equal dignity, freedom and rights in our societies. We are invited to follow the perseverance of Jesus Christ and his social choice not to give in to violence, hate and aggression until his death and to accept our death within the projects of our life (ibid. 118). Feminist protestant theologians defend against the theologies of their male colleagues free will as responsibility, social choice and dignity. Further, faith leads to grace and mercy, self-determination and self-esteem doing away with blind obedience to cruel determination by an unknown god. The biblical scholar, master on early Christianity, the Church Fathers and Reformation, Bovon (1938-2013) sticks to a kind of divine determinism that makes Pilate, and the group of Jews execute Go’d’s will (Bovon 2009, 429) and claims that they really lack the freedom and liberty for a different kind of choice (ibid. 435). If Go’d wants life (ibid), why does he let Jesus be killed by Pilate and a group of Jews, he asks? I am no expert on Luther or Calvin. Trying to simply read Luke, I find no biblical evidence that Pilate and the Sanhedrin and the group of Jews had no choice. Evidently, they made a choice. Bovon refers to Luther’s exegesis of the Gospels and repeats Luther, claiming Go’d’s predetermination of atonement by the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus’s life for the sin of the whole world (ibid. 477).

I admit, I have not read Luther’s interpretation of the Gospels. In order to get close to Luther, I read his treatise “The Bondage of the Will” (Martin Luther. De servo arbitrio. 1525. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 219-662. 284. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig). Reading the Gospel I do not read of a free will of Go’d, or of the bondage of human will. I understand that Luther’s main interest lies in Go’d’s grace and mercy for the faithful. The destiny of life as weakness, liberty, freedom, and determination are secondary theological concepts. Luther’s central biblical argument is Romans 3, 28, “a person is justified by faith and not by doing what the Law tells him to do”: Hominem iustificari fide (Disputatio D. Martini Lutheri De Homine 1536. Thesis 32. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 663-670. 668. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig). Härle comments with assertive confidence, that Luther shows in the above citation that concerning anthropology, the doctrine of justification embodies the Christian view on faith as if it were a sum of the Gospel (Härle Wilfried 2006. Einleitung In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. XI-XLII.  XXXVII). Although it sounds to me quite audacious to claim that the sentence Hominem iustificari fide - a person is justified by faith -, sums up the whole Gospel, I prefer this affirmation to any speculation on concepts of free will and predestination. I am happy experiencing Luther’s faith trusting in Christ, who made visible Go’d’s mercy, that is justification (ibid. XVI). For the rest, I try to follow Luther’s advice, not to enter a discourse on “the secret will of the Majesty”, not to engage into “an investigation of these secrets of the Majesty that are impossible to touch”, because His “home is in inaccessible light” (1 Timothy 6, 16) (Martin Luther. De servo arbitrio. 1525. In: “Martin Luther. Lateinisch-Deutsche Studienausgabe”. Band 1. 2006. Der Mensch vor Gott. Editor: Wilfried Härle. 219-662. 414. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt: Leipzig). Luther really respects the context of 1 Timothy 6, 16, “God, the blessed and only Ruler of all, the King of kings and the Lord of lords who alone is immortal, whose home is in inaccessible light, who no human being has seen or is able to see: to him be honour and everlasting power. Amen (1 Timothy 6, 15 – 16). Luther then makes the reader’s “rashness” and “constant perversity” turn to “the incarnated Go’d”, “Jesus crucified”, by whom we have everything we need to know and that which we should not know (ibid.). For a logical investigation on sentences, I turn to the Erlangen School of Logic (Kamlah, Wilhelm, and Paul Lorenzen. 1973. Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. 78. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut). For a definition, I need at least two rules for predictors. The first rule says: The object x is called “term” passes to x is called predictor. The second rule says: x is called “term” passes to x is explicitly agreed on (ibid.). For defining the term “whale” the scientific community explicitly agrees to the predictor “mammal”: A whale is a mammal (ibid. 77). We call this sentence a predication. Predication investigates how predictors refer to objects in speech-acts of empirical science. Predictors are so to say characteristics, significant differences, descriptions of a small cutout of reality, or elements of a picture. The problem with the expression “Go’d” consists of the fact that we cannot present an empiric predictor for “Go’d”. Speaking on the women and men who reject faith in Jesus Christ, Luther turns against his advice and again speaks of “the secret will of the Majesty that leaves those behind who do not accept faith in Jesus Christ (Martin Luther. 1525. De servo arbitrio. 414). I prefer logic inconsistency to dogmatic sophistication. The Franconian city of Erlangen is Protestant, Paul Lorenzen is Protestant, and his private letters give testimony to a lot of predications about Go’d and Jesus Christ, that would not be possible if he followed his logic for predictors (See my Post “Paul Lorenzen confesses faith in Jesus Christ”).

The cross is a reminder of our weakness and our redemption and justification by the mercy of Go’d. All, the strong and the weak, the sinners and hosts in the love feasts and even the enemies are welcome to Christ. In Romans 15, 7 Paul exhorts the believers relating to each other according to the model of Jesus Christ: “Accept one another, then, for the sake of God’s glory, as Christ accepted you”. The verb “to accept” is the same Greek proslambánomai for the welcoming of one another and the redemption of Christ (Mathew 2013, 145). The redemptive action of Christ is caused not by our merits but on the contrary by our “unrighteous character”, Christ accepts our weakness with active love (Taube, Tietz-Buck, Klinge. 1995. 152). Romans 15.3: “Christ did not indulge his own feelings, either; indeed, as scripture says: The insults of those who insult you fall on me”. Paul refers to Psalm 69,9b. In behalf of the shamed, Christ died a shameful death (ibid). The sisters and brothers judging one another with contempt in Rome are the weak, and Christ’s shameful death is weakness again. This mutuality of weakness bears reconciliation. Weakness asks for faith, and God’s mercy restores the dignity and integrity of those who believe and come to honor one another and stop despise and contempt (ibid).

For 23 chapters the people in the Gospel of Luke were on the side of Jesus. In Luke 23, 13 the people turn to the side of the enemies of Jesus. Jesus now is completely left alone. Bovon argues, Luke 23, 27, where “large numbers of people” followed Jesus on the way to Calvary, and Luke 23, 48, where these people went home after the death of Jesus “beating their breasts” cannot neutralize that in Luke 23, 21 the group of the present Jews screaming shouted out their demand for crucifixion. In my opinion, there is no need for neutralizing, there is forgiving mercy for repenting. In Luke 23, 14 Pilate had declared Jesus innocent, in Luke 23, 15 he assessed that Herod had declared Jesus innocent and in Luke 23, 20 and 23, 22 he keeps repeating that Jesus is innocent. What perversion: The real criminal “who had been imprisoned because of rioting and murder” (Luke 23, 25) goes free and the innocent gets condemned to death on the cross (Bovon 2009, 416). Jesus is not passive. He stays with his social choice to persevere his way to the Father and does not enter negotiations for pardon or release. It is important to assess that Pilate, too, takes a social choice, he is taking a decision, he acts. He had the political power to resist the Jews, but he did not. Giving in to his weakness and his lacking self-consciousness may be taken as mitigating circumstances for his terrible decision, but there is no doubt: he is acting on his responsibility. He is handing over Jesus to the will of those who are going on to kill him (Luke 23, 25). I believe in Go’d’s grace and mercy for the salvation and reconciliation of all women, men and queer at any moment of their lives. In my opinion, Pilate and the group of Jews that are going to kill Jesus were free to turn away from their path of violence until the very end. The narrative of the “good criminal” (Luke 23, 40–43) impressively affirms that repentance, reconciliation and the promise of salvation is granted until the end.

At the beginning of the Gospel of Luke the angel of the Lord announces to Zechariah that the son his wife Elisabeth will bear “will be your joy and delight and many will rejoice at his birth” (Luke 1, 13–14). The angel of the Lord announces to the shepherds the “great joy” that the savior was born (Luke 2, 10–11). In Luke 24, 52 we find again the same expression “joy” (Greek: chará), “great joy” filled the disciples” (Bovon 2009, 620). The narrative of the Gospel of Luke is constructed with an inclusion of joy and delight. The story of Zechariah began in the temple and now at the end of the Gospel of Luke the disciples again are in the temple (Luke 24, 53). The temple is the place for prayer (Acts 3, 1) not any more sacrifice. In the temple, Peter starts proclaiming Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Messiah (Acts 3, 12–26). With the missionaries, Go’d’s Gospel will pass from Jerusalem to the whole world (ibid). For this time, it is clear that Jesus Christ stays with the Father in the glory of Go’d and that Go’d’s Holy Spirit will stay with those believing in Jesus Christ.

Not only Protestant feminists and Catholic feminist theologians but also Muslim women defend the equal dignity, freedom and rights of women and men. As a Catholic, I am encouraging the Roman Catholic Church to make come true Human Rights, above all within the Roman Catholic Church, and interpreting the Bible as proclaiming equal dignity, freedom and rights for all women, men and queer. The Muslim woman Adila Abusharaf holds that the Qur’an is not against women rights; it is the family and (often pre-Islamic) patriarchal traditions that are against women rights. I am impressed by Adila Abusharaf who encourages women to penetrate the theological discourse to negotiate their roles and rights (Abusharaf, Adila. 2006. “Women in Islamic communities: The quest for Gender Justice Research.” Human Rights Quarterly 28 (3): 714–728.722).

I document the development of Human Rights on a global basis. After the adoption and proclamation of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, treaties of international law confirmed the rights of the UDHR. In 1976, there was the ratification of the Principal United Nations Human Rights Treaties, which agreed on Economic, Social and Cultural and further Civil and Political Rights by Member States developing and realizing Human Rights. I believe in the conviction of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion of belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”. Because of lack of the necessary knowledge, I cannot enter the discussions of intra-qur’anic abrogation or the connection between the Qur’an and the Sunna. Abrogation says, “that some verses of the Qur’an restrict, modify or even nullify other verses” (Dammen McAuliffe 2006, 187). Jane Dammen McAuliffe gives Qur’an 9,5 as a verse that is used for abrogation. Qur’an 9,5 begins, “And when the sacred months have passed, kill the idolators whenever you find them …” (ibid). Ibn al-Jawzi (1116–1200 CE) refers in his important commentary to the Qur’an to this verse as the verse of the sword (ibid). In standard treatises this verse seems to abrogate at least 124 other verses on religious tolerance (ibid. 187–88). A related question for the exegesis of the Qur’an asks: does the verse apply to a single individual or a specific group of people or is its applicability far broader than that (ibid. 188)? Exegetic scholars of the Bible ask the same question for verses of the New Testament. Abdulaziz Sachedina writes she is convinced that “The recognition of freedom of conscience in matters of faith is the cornerstone of the qur’anic notion of religious pluralism, at the level of inter-religious as well as intra-religious relations” (Sachedina, Abdulaziz. 2006. “The Qur’an and other religions.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 291–309. 295. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). It is a unique conviction of Islam that the oneness of God unites Muslims with all of humanity (ibid. 294). Nevertheless, there is a tension between Islam as a religion and as a civilization. The Qur’anic recognition of a pluralism of responses to divine guidance and of freedom of human conscience concerns the private faith and its spiritual space (ibid). Islam organizes its public order in view of the well-being of the community of Muslim believers and of their social system (ibid). The community and society limit jurisdiction over the public projections of private faith by “its commitment to build a just social order” (ibid. 295). For Catholics, Muslims, Jews and all women, men and queer who hold beliefs and convictions, I express my hope for an effective rule of Human Rights law without any abrogation of liberties, dignity, and rights.

I stick to the conviction of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everybody has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. Asma Barlas writes that not only does the Qur’an address women, but also it frequently does so in a manner that should leave little room for doubt that it considers them equal to men. Some 1,400 years ago Muhammad’s wife Umm Salama reportedly asked him why the Qur’an was not addressing women (Barlas, Asma. 2006. “Women’s readings of the Qur’an.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe, 255–272. 255. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Muslims use this recorded tradition to explain why the Qur’an speaks directly to women (ibid). In Qur’an 33, 35 “Go’d makes women the subject of divine discourse” (ibid. 256). In the Qur’an women expressed themselves and their concerns during the process of its revelation (ibid). Although in Arabic language the male gender is inclusive of the female, the Qur’an expressly addresses both genders. “For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God’s praise; for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward (Qur’an 33,35)” (ibid. 255). Apparently, the same happened to women in Islam as happened to Christian women in the decades after Jesus’s death through the patriarchal structure of the Church. By the second Islamic century (eighth century CE), male scholars or ulama, had managed to dilute “the egalitarian impulse in various parts of tradition”, and a hundred years later, even the egalitarianism that was once associated with the Qur’an lost its “subversive connotation” (ibid. 256–57), reports Asma Barlas and continues: Muslims have a reason to struggle against social and gender inequalities (ibid. 269). Let me modestly confirm the same interest for Catholics. Claims of equal dignity, freedom and rights remain “confined to the margins of Muslim religious discourse”, because Muslim societies allow only some men to speak authoritatively in God’s name (ibid. 268–69). Asma Barlas insists “There needs to be a far-reaching reform of Muslim societies and communal consciousness since one cannot read the Qur’an for its best meanings in repressive and antidemocratic circumstances where one cannot ask some questions openly” (ibid. 269).  Analogically, we must assess for the Roman Catholic Church, there needs to be a far-reaching reform of the society of the Roman Catholic Church and communal consciousness since one cannot read the Bible for its best meanings in repressive and antidemocratic circumstances where one cannot ask some questions openly.  

The Christians’ belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, their Lord, does not do away with the claim of Romans 11, 17–24 that the Jews are co-heirs of salvation (Nostra Aetate 4, 2).  Go’d’s will of salvation not only concerns all of humanity but also is the origin of the freedom of conscience and the liberties for social choices.

Nostra Aetate 1, 1 confirms the task of the Roman Catholic Church of “promoting unity and love among men, indeed among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship”. Nostra Aetate 1, 2 proclaims unity and peace of “the community of all peoples” for several reasons. Because of the belief that the origin of humankind is the Only One, Go’d, because of the belief that the final goal of women, men and queer is Go’d, and because of the belief and faith that “His providence, His manifestations of goodness, His saving design extend to all men” (Nostra Aetate 1, 2). Nostra Aetate 1, 2 legitimizes this claim of faith with four references to the Bible: Wisdom 8, 1, Acts 14, 17, Romains 2,6–7 and 1 Timothy 2,4.

Wisdom, that is Go’d, “reaches from one end of the world to the other and she governs the whole world for its good” (Wisdom 8, 1). Acts confirm with the speech of Barnabas and Paul after the healing of a cripple in Lycaonia that Go’d is the Go’d of the freedom of conscience and the freedom of the social choices of women, men and queer on this earth, “In the past He allowed all the nations to go their own way” (Acts 14, 16). Go’d created the equal dignity, freedom and rights of all women, men and queer and women, men and queer of all nations realize social choices of their own ways and Go’d keeps caring for them and sustaining His creation. “But even then, he did not leave you without evidence of himself in the good things he does for you: he sends you rain from heaven and seasons of fruitfulness; he fills you with food and your hearts with merriment” (Acts 14:17). The Second Vatican Council is ready assessing “Go’d’s saving design for all men” (Nostra Aetate 1,2) but is not ready assessing with Acts 14, 16 Go’d as origin of the freedom of conscience and of the freedom of the social choices of women, men and queer. Reading Acts 14, 16–17 as conjunction and not as split affirmations, reveals the complete gratuity of Go’d’s mercy and salvific design. The Degree on the Mission Activity of the Church Ad Gentes 7, 1 again confirms the universal will of Go’d for saving all women, men and queer by preaching the Gospel. “This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, ‘who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2, 45)’, ‘neither is there salvation in any other (Acts 4,12)’” (Ad Gentes 7, 1). The citation of 1 Timothy 2, 45 sounds quite dogmatic and invites to exclude women, men and queer who have no access to Jesus Christ from salvation. Ad Gentes really does not read 1 Timothy 2, 45 within the context of the whole First letter to Timothy and does not reflect on the context of the letter within the New Testament. In 1 Tiomothy 2, 7 the author of the letter affirms that he was appointed to preach and be an apostle of Jesus Christ. From this personal testimony, it is clear that the author of The First Letter to Timothy preaches his faith in Jesus Christ from which he receives salvation. This kind of confession does not exclude salvation for women, men and queer according to Go’d’s salvific design. The same is true for the citation of Acts 4, 12 by Ad Gentes 7, 1. The context of the proclamation by Peter and John “neither is there salvation in any other (Acts 4,12)” than Jesus Christ is a healing in front of the Temple in Jerusalem and the defense speech of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin. It is clear that Peter and John proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ as their faith, Jesus Christ for them is the cornerstone of salvation, the way and the truth. At the same time Peter and John from the beginning insist that Go’d raised Jesus Christ of Nazareth from the dead. The proclamation of salvation in the end is a proclamation of the One and Only, Go’d of mercy (Acts 4, 10). It is not the intention of the author of Acts to exclude anyone from salvation according to the salvific design of Go’d’s mercy.

Mouhanad Khorchide, the Austrian sociologist and Islamic scholar of Palestinian family background, and the German Roman Catholic theologian Klaus von Stosch frankly assess the effects of the Muslims’ faith in the divine origin of the Qur’an for Christians. The conviction that the Qur’an is the result of Go’d’s communication to the first addressee of revelation who is Mouhamad constitutes an explosive potential for the dialogue and cooperation of Christians and Muslims (Khorchide, Mouhanad, and Klaus von Stosch. 2018. Der andere Prophet. Jesus im Koran. 10. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder). Dealing with the Christians’ defense of their Christology and the Muslims’ critique of this Christology is a possibility condition for a peaceful cooperation of Christians and Muslims and their religions with each other (ibid). Christian theology can learn from the representations of Jesus in the Qur’an and the understanding of the estimation of Jesus in the Qur’an is important for an adequate understanding of the Qur’an. 108 verses speak in 15 different suras directly of Jesus, many other verses speak of him indirectly (ibid). For six years the Muslim and Christian authors, Khorchide and von Stosch, collaborated with each other and a team of Muslim and Christian women and men researchers in order to understand the perspectives of each other and to take together responsibility for their final text (ibid. 13). The principles of the so-called comparative theology constitute one methodological element of this extraordinary project. The authors describe comparative theology as trying to mutually empathize with their faith perspectives and interact aiming at mutually supporting a credible expression of the proper faith (ibid. 14). At the end of this common process, von Stosch writes that the sura Maryam helped him see the importance of the Virgin Mary for Jesus. Jesus is the son of Mary, Mary births Jesus with pains of labor, and she found herself in the difficulties of a young mother with an illegitimate child. From the beginning Jesus is empowered helping her in her troubles with his solidarity and blessings (ibid. 290). Von Stosch is moved by the Christological titles the Qur’an attributes to Jesus, such as word of Go’d, servant of Go’d, son of Mary, spirit of Go’d and the one being close to Go’d (ibid. 291).  The Qur’an’s blanks on the passion and the cross of Jesus Christ made the Christian theologian von Stosch think (ibid. 292). This first book on Jesus in the Qur’an in the common responsibility of a Christian and a Muslim author (ibid. 10) for me is a consoling gift of peace. I do not read Arabic, and I do not discuss much with Muslims on our faiths. Khorchide assesses, the Qur’an does not criticize Christianity in general but criticizes convictions and practices of groups of Christians and Muslims alike, who divinize human persons and scholars in order to privilege the proper religious convictions but doing so challenge the omnipotence of Go’d (ibid. 296).

So far, the priority of the daily struggle for my physical, psychic, social, cultural and spiritual integrity and the meditation with this struggle brought me integrity, peace and comfort. Following my experience of integrity, thankfulness and hope filled the meditation of the healing and preaching Jesus. The gift of feeling comforted in the hands of Go’d’s mercy and the experience of safety and security fill my consciousness with happiness. The meditation about sentences of Khorchide and von Stosch (2018) makes me feel with great clarity and security that the a priori of salvation is the acceptance of my suffering and my social choice to walk the way of healing. Accepting my suffering and restoring my integrity is the possibility condition of meditating on the cross of Jesus Christ and the resurrection. My hope remains to become sanctified by the Holy Spirit that is experiencing Jesus Christ living as the life empowering power of Go’d and living with the Spirit of love. In the light of understanding my acceptance and healing from my sufferings, and in the light of accepting suffering as lived experience of women, men and queer, I repeat some sentences about my understanding of the Christian term sacrifice as spiritual sacrifice of my body concerning the social realization of the just world of Go’d. What does that mean? I propose describing my sacrifice as my social choice to renounce some legitimate interest for the sake of others, to go without a claim for something for myself and thereby empower the equal dignity, freedom and rights of others. Sacrifice is a policy within the politics of caring for the polity of democracy. Why do I speak of a spiritual sacrifice of myself? I call a sacrifice spiritual because as a Christian I believe and wish realizing the law of the Spirit that is love. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes 24,2 recognizes the value of love for peace and the unity of mankind and insists with Paul together with John on the conjunction of love of oneself, of love of the neighbor and of love of Go’d. “If there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.... Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:9–10)” and “the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20)”.

It is true; Paul uses cult terminology to speak of the faith in justification, reconciliation and liberation. Romans 3, 25a:

“God appointed him as a sacrifice (Greek: hilasterion) for reconciliation, through faith, by the shedding of his blood, and so showed his justness;”

Paul speaks of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Go’d’s justice. This justice is reconciliation, reconciling justice that we receive through faith (Lyonnet 1989, 92). In Romans 3, 25a, the Greek hilasterios is translated by “means of expiation” or “place of propitiation”, that is a propitiatory sacrifice (ibid). Against the tradition of the Reform and the Catholic tradition since then, we are not allowed to interpret that Go’d was putting his anger over Jesus. The Greek expression endeixis means “proof” and the New Jerusalem Bible translates “showed”. Lyonnet interprets the expression sacrifice as “the showing by realization” of the liberation from enslaving sin (Romans 3, 24) as Go’d’s salvific agency that is by “forgiving the sins” (Romans 3, 25b) (ibid). Concerning the use of the expression “sacrifice” (in Greek: thusia) with Paul we have to pay attention at the fact that Paul speaks of a “spiritual service” (Greek: logikae latreia) that is the new cult of the Christians is of the order of a spiritual service (ibid. 37). This new cult we find strongly defended in Hebrews (ibid). The New American Standard Bible beautifully and correctly translates Hebrews 12, 28: “Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe”.

If Paul calls his Roman sisters and brothers in Romans 12, 1 “to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice” as a “spiritual service” to Go’d, Paul speaks of apostolic service. In Romans 15, 16 Paul offers Go’d the Gentiles as his “priestly service” as “servant of the Gospel” to Go’d for that Go’d may “sanctify them in the Holy Spirit” (ibid. 39).