The Church and its Environment in the Book of Revelation: Integration and Separation
Ladies and gentlemen,
The last book of the
newtestamentical canon, the Apocalypse of John, poses as many questions to
exegetical scholars as before, which can neither be discussed at length nor
completely solved in our seminar group[1]. But it seems to be evident, that
the writer of the Apocalypse especially tries to admonish his adressees, the
Christian communities and in the same way the Christian individuals, to remain
faithfully and steadfastly in their faith in Christ. The Christian individuals
are exhorted to keep their belief purely and unadulterated, to restrict
themselves to the worship of the God of the Old Testament and of his Píßïí Christus and to avoid any participation
in cultic-religious worship of other, of pagan gods, in particular of the Roman
Emperor, reigning at the time of the composition of the Apc. Especially in his
letters to the Christian communities in Pergamon (Apc 2,1217) and Thyatira
(Apc 2,1829), John fights against inner groups of these communities, whose
members join in the cultic-religious Emperor worship in their cities and, above
all, justify their participation by pointing to theological reasons. In Apc
2,24, the Thyateiric prophetess EÉåæÜâåë and her followers were described as such, who hãíùóáí ôN
âáèÝá ôï óáôáíO ©ò ëÝãïõóéí, as such, who have, according to their own testimony, recognized the
depths of Satan. In my opinion, this formulation seems to indicate, that the
Christian followers of EÉåæÜâåë are of the opinion, that the óáôáíOò and the pagan gods and goddesses including the
Roman principes, which all depend on him, are finally only helpless and
powerless figures, insignificant for the salvation or the fate of the Christians.
But the theological conclusion, which is drawn by EÉåæÜâåë and her followers from this
knowledge, is as follows: The participation in the cultic-religious worship of
pagan gods and goddesses and of the Roman Emperors cannot harm the Christians
in their past and present status of salvation, cannot result in loosing their
right to salvation far now and far the future[2].
Contrary to this opinion, which
tries to interpose and to integrate the Christian faith and the participation
in the cultic-religious worship of pagan gods and goddesses, also by pointing
out to theological reasons, John opposes this in his Apc very fiercely and
sharply: These Christians, who, founded by theological reasons or not,
participate in the cultic-religious worship of pagan gods and goddesses, are
called to account by the Pñíßïí Christ already in present times (Apc 2,16.22f.) and will be excluded
from salvation in the future, described in Apc 21f. (Apc 2,17.26ff.). Against
this theological position, which tries to interpose between the pagan environment
and the individual existence as a Christian, John himself polemizes and
developes a separating, respectively separatistic statement: Only the Christian
individual, who stays faithfully and steadfastly in his faith in Christ, who
keeps his belief purely and unadulterated, will participate in the present and
also in the futuric salvation.
From this exegetical thesis results,
the in my view exciting question, if and in which way John could work as a
Christian missionary in his pagan environment, in the presence of his separating
respectively separatistic statement. In my opinion, the theological statement
of John implies the following basic principles of a theory of Christian
mission: (a) Christian mission has to be practised on condition that present
and futuric salvation can be created, granted and obtained only by the grace of
the God of the Old Testament and its Pñíßïí Christ. (b) Christian mission has to be
practised in clear and distinct delimitation and distinction from other,
non-Christian religions, from other, non-Christian cultic-religious worship.
(c) Christian mission has to be practised by clearly characterizing other,
non-Christian gods and goddesses as evil, forces, whose worship and positive
evaluation leads Christians to the loss of their salvation, which they have
already experienced in Christ. Summa: Christian mission cannot be seen on as
interposing or integrative dialogue between different religions and cultures,
but only in a sharp and also polemical distance and distinction of them.
But now, what shall we, Christians,
Christian theologians, priests, pastors and missionarys in the year 2004, do
with this non-integrative, separating respectively separatisting statement of
John? Here are some short remarks concerning this question: (a) At first, we
have to realize, that the Apc of John, like all other writings of the New
Testaments, was written in a specific historical situation, and reflects, at
least for the present, the theological position of only one appointed
historical person. The voice of this person, whose writing has been taken into
the newtestamentical canon, is, at least for this reason, to be heard and also
to be considered, but in every case also to be refered to in relation to the
other voices and positions within the newtestamentical canon. This may lead to
a new and different valuation of the theological position of John. (b) As a
historically grown theological position within the early Christianity the theological
statement of John cannot be immediately fully accepted and adopted in our
present times, but should be interpreted at first. Nevertheless, we are admonished
by John, that in our work within the Christian mission, we have to keep and
hold out as a central aspect of Christian proclamation, that present and
futuric salvation can be created, granted and obtained only by the grace of the
God of the Old Testament and its Pñíßïí Christ. In my opinion, we have again and again
to keep this aspect very clearly in mind, especially within our mutual work and
in our dialogue with representatives of other religions and with non-Christian
individuals. If we want to follow the statement of John, Christian mission can
take place integratively, also in our times, only by having a mutual belief in
the God of the Old Testament and his Pñíßïí Christ.
Thank you very much for your attention.
[1] I hope to clear in my Habilitationsschrift Hadrian oder Christus? Untersuchungen zur Datierung der neutestamentlichen Johannesapokalypse the problem of the dating of the Apc.
[2] The same manner of faith, may be
not in the same way founded theologically, has be practised by the Nicolaitans
living in Pergamon.