“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly!” (Colossians 3:16)

We confess the Bible as the only source of our faith. What Catholics and Orthodox call tradition can never be accepted as a source of faith as it cannot be traced back to the apostolic time and often contradicts the Bible.

Therefore it is obvious that in our common talks we make it our priority to get to know and understand the Bible better and better. We reject the fundamentalistic understanding of the Bible based on the teaching of verbal-inspiration, because this way of thinking inevitably leads to giving up the mind, which God gave us to gain a deeper and fuller understanding of Himself.

In the same way we have to reject liberal theology which reduces the Bible to a mere human fabrication. Moreover the reasoning of liberal theologians is often anything but historical or critical. In their interpretations they are primarily led by their own ideologies. We do not take the Bible literally but we do take the Bible seriously.

God revealed himself so plainly that everybody who searches for him earnestly will find him in his word. Everybody is able to recognise Gods will.

The reproach that we regard the Bible as a certain kind of oracle is not only unjustified but also contradicts Kluges own statement that we have a relatively high theological level. From this item of criticism it becomes obvious that his aim is not at all to provide objective, helpful criticism but defamation.

We clearly reject every random or arbitrary treatment of the Bible such as the random drawing of Bible passages on certain occasions (e.g. at the turn of the year). Also the Herrnhuter Losungen or Daily Watchwords which are very popular among Protestants and Free-Churches belong to this category.

We also know that the Bible does not have an answer to every question.

On the one hand it is clear that God has revealed in the Bible everything that is necessary for the salvation of man and that we do not need any additional revelation or tradition to find God and our salvation. On the other hand there are many things for which the Bible does not give us a clear answer or no answer at all. This is also true for many aspects of our practical life. Therefore the reproach that we apply models from the first century directly to modern life is in itself ridiculous. In many details we simply do not know how the first Christians lived day by day. The summarised reports in the book of Acts show us only a few basic principles. In our situation today there are many things that we have to realise by thinking them through under the leading of the Spirit. We are not Bible positivists like the so-called Church of Christ, who try to positively justify all of their actions through passages from the NT.

The claim that only competent people, that is those in charge, are able to understand and interpret the Bible correctly might be found in Roman-Catholic doctrinal documents. This is not what we teach. We do not claim to have a monopoly over Bible interpretation like the Roman-Catholic magisterium (teaching authority) and the Watch Tower Society. The strength or weakness of our interpretation is dependent on the strength or weakness of our arguments which should be understandable for everyone.

We are glad and thankful that everybody has free access to the Bible and that the Catholic monopoly over the Bible has been broken. Nowadays nobody is expelled from his own country for possessing a non-Catholic Bible edition. Obviously the Bible is not able to defend itself against those who interpret it wrongly and it is very sad to see what some people have done with Gods word. But where opposing opinions can be freely voiced in an open discussion the truth can be clearly seen.

We would like to comment on some of the Bible passages which Mr. Kluge accuses us of misinterpreting:

a) Concerning the direct application of models from the first century to modern life we have already explained our position. The issue of daily meetings obviously really bothers Mr. Kluge. Gods love urges us to do so.

b) Church as community of sinners

We cannot interpret allegorically, rationalise away or discard as irrelevant for today a Bible verse that does not exist. Other people however, do so with passages that speak about the holiness of the church. E.g.: Matt 18:15-18; 1 Cor 5:1-1; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; Eph 1:4; 5:25-27; Col 1:9-11; 21-23; Rev 2:5; 3:15-16; 14:4-5 etc.

c) Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. (Matt 7:1)

In saying this Jesus did not mean that we cannot refer to what is bad as bad anymore, nor that we are not allowed to admonish a sinner.

The Bible passage (the author means Matt 7:1) which speaks of Gods unswerving judgement is misinterpreted in the most terrible fashion, when it is consistently abused to justify moral laxity. Good remains good and evil remains evil. (J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, 1964, p. 97)

According to Mr. Kluges words Jesus would have rejected other Jewish believers in a positively arrogant way in Matt 23, not to mention the way John the Baptist and numerous Old Testament prophets exhorted their contemporaries to repent.

What would Mr. Kluge say about the abusive and aggressive language used by the great reformer Martin Luther?

How many people were condemned not only with words but also with the sword or at the stake by the very church in which Mr. Kluge is a priest.

We clearly distance ourselves from all those crimes committed in the name of Christianity but we will continue to call good, good and evil, evil.

It is Gods love for the people that motivates us for that very reason we must not turn a blind eye to their sins.

But as for me, I am filled with power, with the spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might,
to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. (Micah 3:8)

Within the same context (Matt 7:6) we can read: Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you.

This very verse presupposes that we have to assess who is open for Gods word and who is not. But we always have to be aware that the standard we apply to others will be applied to us as well. In Matt 7:1-5 and Rom 2:1 Jesus and Paul both reject the attitude of judging others while doing the very things one is criticising others for. We do not only want to apply Gods standards to others but all the more to ourselves.
In this place, then, as it seems at least to me, He doth not simply command us not to judge any of men’s sins, neither doth He simply forbid the doing of such a thing, but to them that are full of innumerable ills, and are trampling upon other men for trifles. And I think that certain Jews too are here hinted at, for that while they were bitter accusing their neighbours for small faults, and such as came to nothing, they were themselves insensibly committing deadly sins. (John Chrysostom Homilies on Matthew Homily XXIII.)

Another passage which is helpful for understanding Matt 7 is the following statement of Paul:

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of Gods Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are discerned spiritually. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one elses scrutiny. (1 Cor 2:14-15)

These words are not an expression of human arrogance but a spiritual reality for all those who have humbled themselves under Gods hand enabling Gods Spirit to give them the authority to discern everything. Even if Kluge disputes the fact that we have the Holy Spirit he has to admit that according to Gods word the Holy Spirit grants believers the authority to discern. Kluge judges us strongly without considering the fact that many of the things he criticises as being sectarian in our case are regarded as virtues in his own church. Our critic should perhaps examine himself in the light of Matt 7:1.

d) Rom 14

The context speaks unambiguously about the attitude of Christians towards the Mosaic Law. The weak ones here are not the alcohol or nicotine addicts… The weak in Rom 14 are those who continue to keep the ritual law of the OT because they still have not realised the full extent of salvation through Jesus. If they had ignored the food laws they would have acted against their consciences and would have faced a dangerous dilemma, from which Paul wanted to spare them.

It is a completely different situation if nowadays somebody does not want to give up his sins or holds to unbiblical teachings. Such people are not weak but evil.

If somebody honestly fights against his sins and perhaps fails then patience is called for. The command of brotherly love requires this of us, independently of Rom 14.

The fact that Rom 14 responds to the question of keeping the Law is seen in its connection to chapter 15. This view is also upheld by numerous commentaries.

e) Lk 15:3-7 // Matt 18:12-14

The interpretation of this parable that Mr. Kluge proposes is not the communitys interpretation. Of course the question arises as to whether a normal shepherd would leave 99 sheep because of a single lost one. Joachim Jeremias, a German scholar also writes: Experts on Palestinian life all agree that a shepherd cannot possibly leave his flock to itself. If he has to look for a lost animal he leaves the others in the charge of the shepherds who share the fold with him (Luke 2:8, John 10:4 f.), or drives them into a cave. (Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, Revised Edition, 1963, p.133)

Jesus wanted to show Gods great love which surpasses the usual human standards and accepts also those who are usually written off by other people. The question is whether in the case mentioned by Kluge this parable can show the right solution.

To Kluges comment that in the group it is not usual to endeavour continuously for people who did not take the bait after the first contact. Such people missed their chance… we want to say that among us there are several brothers who did not immediately take the bait. We do not work with psychological pressure but give those people, who (still) have too little interest space to think over everything they have heard. Repentance is not the result of human psychology but of Gods acting.

Concerning the Canon: We recognise the Old Testament Canon which Jesus had as a Jew in Palestine (which means we reject the Apocrypha acknowledged by the Catholics and Orthodox who euphemistically call them deutero-canonical scriptures), and we acknowledge the Christian canon of the NT which has been commonly accepted since the time of Athanasius.

There is no doubt that not all books of the Bible are of the same importance. Clearly the Gospel of John is far more significant than, say, the genealogies in 1 Chron 1-8.

The ultimate standard for our canon is Jesus Christ. For this reason it is impossible to recognise scriptures as belonging to the Old Testament that Jesus neither knew nor recognised as Holy Scriptures. In this point both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox organisations have raised themselves above Jesus, calling apocryphal scriptures Old Testament scriptures. In the Catholic organisation these books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, and Baruch. There are also additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Through the decision of the Council of Trient these books gained canonical significance in the 16th century, as the Catholics believed they could find in them biblical support for some of their unique teachings which were rejected by the Protestants (prayer for the dead 2 Macc 12; Veneration of angels Tobit). Neither Jesus, nor the Jews ever regarded one of these books Holy Scriptures. The first Christian canon list for the OT (Meliton of Sardes) does not include these books. Also Jerome and Athanasius rejected them. With this teaching the Catholic Church has defied not only Jesus, but also a significant part of its own tradition.

By including the Book of Baruch they even suceeded in having a book which was written after the year 70AD, later than all NT scriptures, recognised as part of the Old Testament, and one that also contains anti-Christian polemic (Bar 3:37-4:4 sets the incarnate Logos against the Jewish Law, which is here called the Wisdom which appeared on earth and lived with humankind. This passage also speaks against Gentile mission: Do not give your glory to another, or your advantages to an alien people.)

Also the Book of Tobit, with its propaganda for pagan customs (the commentary from the Pattloch-Bibel on Tobit 6:7-9 says: Incense was popularly used in Assyrian-Babylonian religions to fend off evil demons) is out of place in the Bible.

In contrast we hold to the same Old Testament canon which the disciples accepted from the Nation of Israel and which was Jesus own canon, too.

Consequently, we clearly accept the book of Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) as part of the OT, even though its canonicity was disputed by the Jews in Jamnia at the end of the first century and it is not once quoted in the NT. The understanding of the inspiration of this book poses certain problems, because several passages, such as the ones listed below, can surely not be understood as a direct word from God:

I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upwards and the spirit of animals goes downwards to the earth? Eccl 3:18-21

Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of countenance the heart is made glad. Eccl 7:3

Do not be too righteous, and do not act too wise; why should you destroy yourself? Do not be too wicked, and do not be a fool; why should you die before your time? Eccl 7:16-17

I found more bitter than death the woman who is a trap, whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are fetters; one who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her. Eccl 7:26

But whoever is joined with all the living has hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost. Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished; never again will they have any share in all that happens under the sun. Eccl 9:4-6.

The solution might be found in an interesting literary concept. The (unknown, most probably post-exilic) author describes in the frame of a literary fiction the thoughts of Solomon after his apostasy in order to show the limits of human thinking without God.

So although we can find deep human wisdom in this book, finally only resignation remains: All is vanity (Eccl. 1:2 and many other passages). A man living without God cannot fathom the deepest sense of life with God.

In Eccl. 1:12-2:26 we find a depiction of Solomon’s life without mention of his name. We can even find a reference to his harem which, according to 1 Kings 11:1-13, was the reason for his apostasy (Eccl 2:8). Solomon was looking for joy, but he did not find it. Without God it remained hidden from him. So this book is an interesting kind of warning about apostasy!

The concluding verses (12:8-14) which, in the opinion of numerous theologians were added later by another person, try to somehow fit this wisdom into the frame of orthodox belief. But the most sensible explanation remains the one mentioned above.

For interpreters in earlier times it was also clear that much of what is written in the book of Ecclesiastes cannot be from God. Even Gregory the Great in his Dialogues IV/4 gives the explanation that some of what the the Preacher utters is of carnal temptation

For the record, let us briefly mention that the question of the exact understanding of Ecclesiastes is for us not one of dogma. We normally do not assess religious groups according to their understanding of this book. As long as someone does not claim that the above cited antigodly statements are the instructions of God, and does not use this book to justify heresies (denial of the immortality of the soul) as do the Adventists and Jehovahs Witnesses, we accept the possibility of various explanations.

We do not try to find a canon within the canon. This expression can be more appropriately applied to Martin Luther’s attitude, who arbitrarily rejected certain books due to his own narrow doctrines on justification.

Thus, concerning the letter to the Hebrews, he wrote that it cannot be considered of equal value to the apostolic letters.

Concerning the Letter of James he wrote:

in direct opposition to St. Paul and all the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works, and declares that Abraham was justified by his works

But this James does nothing more than drive to the Law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the Apostles and thus tossed them off on paper

He calls the Law a law of freedom, although Paul calls it a law of slavery, wrath, death and sin

Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter or Paul were to teach it. In the same way what preaches Christ is apostolic, even if done by Judas, Hannas, Pilate and Herod

In sum: he wished to guard against those who depended on faith without going on to works, but he had neither the spirit nor the thought nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. He tries to acomplish by emphasizing law what the apostles bring about by attracting men to love. I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone placing him or raising him where he likes (Introduction to the Letter of James, 1522)

Concerning the Revelation of John:

I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic… There is not a single prophet in the Old Testament, let alone the New, who so completely through and through uses visions and pictures that I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, — Christ is not taught or known in it (Introduction to the Revelation of John, 1522)

It is not hard to see who speaks about a canon within the canon, and who really claims to be able to discern what preaches Christ and who arrogantly considers his own intellectual judgement higher than scripture.

As for our own literature: Gods revelation is complete. Therefore, the Bible is the one and only document that has authority for us. It is not our goal to produce our own literature. It is more important for each one to study the Bible actively and independently.

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God.” (Ephesians 2:19)

Kluge enumerated a set of criteria which he says we apply to enable us “to distinguish a true community of Jesus”. We would like to respond to these in some detail.

Unfortunately he left out the most important criteria: namely the truth and the teaching.

Paul calls the community of the living God “the pillar and the foundation of the truth” (1Tim 3:15). Therefore the most important question always concerns the teaching. Anyone who openly puts forward unbiblical teachings does not build on the base of the truth and therefore cannot be in the community. Just as Hymeneus and Philetus, who denied the bodily resurrection, could not remain in the church (2 Tim 2:17-18; 1 Tim 1:20).

A look at the array of churches around today shows a broad spectrum of quite different teachings in all the big denominations, often contradictory to each other and, most importantly, contrary to the Bible. There is no trace of unity in their teachings nor of compliance with Scripture. How can these organisations be churches, that is, “foundations of the truth”?

When the foundation of truth is missing there are always corresponding consequences for life.

Christian community life is only possible when it is based on Christian teaching.

Let us move now to the criteria mentioned by Mr. Kluge:

a) The term “devoted Christian” is a tautology. Anyone who is not ready to devote himself is not a “non-devoted Christian” but is not a Christian at all. Church refers to the assembly of ALL Christians. Everyone who follows Jesus belongs to the Church, but likewise anyone who does not follow Him, does not belong to the Church.

b) “No functionaries”

The essence of the community does not consist in a hierarchical structure (as dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic “church”), but in brotherly fellowship.

“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” (Matt 23:8-10)

Jesus did not forbid the use of titles such as “Reverend”, “Monsignore”, “Canon”, “Cardinal”, “Eminence”, “Excellence” and “Your Holiness”. But even if he had been so specific, so-called Christian leaders would, in their vanity, certainly have found other titles to call themselves. Yet they nevertheless dare to call their “functionaries” “Father” (Padre) or even “Holy Father”. Those who do so have surely studied theology long enough to know that this was just what Jesus wanted – wasn’t it?

Having been repelled by the example of the Catholic hierarchy, we want to hold to the biblical example of a brotherly community.

Brotherly community does not mean that everyone must have the same duties. There are differences in the gifts and in the tasks given to Christians (Rom 12, 1 Cor 12), but always of course on the base of brotherly relationships. A two-class society, which distinguishes between priests and laymen, between functionaries and simple believers, or between the 144,000 with heavenly hope and the great crowd of sheep-like people (Jehovah’s Witnesses); or between those baptised with the Holy Spirit and those baptised with water only (Pentecostal groups) cannot be found in the Bible and contradicts brotherly love. The Bible only points to two groups of people: believers and unbelievers, those who are inside and those who are outside.

Just as in a family, where older siblings take care of their younger brothers and sisters, in the community the older brothers also care for their younger brothers, not in order to keep them dependent but to lead them to responsible independence:

“… to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming.” (Eph 4:12-14)

The more a person has received from God, the greater his responsibility is. The Bible uses various terms for people who bear responsibility, e.g.

elders [presbyteroi] in Acts 11:30; 14:23; 20:17 etc.

prophets and teachers – Acts 13:1

overseers [episkopoi] – Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1Tim 3:2; Tit 1:7

(Sometimes translated as Bishops. Please note – the way the Catholics and Protestants use the world Bishop is certainly not what is meant here. “Episkopos” refers to someone who “sees after others, takes care of others”).

pastors (shepherds) and teachers – Eph 4:11

“those who labour among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you” – 1Thess 5:2

leaders – Hebrews 13:7+17

From these different terms, which are to some extent equivalent (as with presbyteros and episkopos in Acts 20 and Titus 1 – a clear testimony against the Catholic differentiation between priests and bishops, who do not have anything to do with the biblical presbyters and episcopes anyway), it is visible that there was no uniform church structure in the New Testament churches. The specific structure of a particular community depended very strongly on the particular circumstances in which a community lived.

A structure with a monarchical church leader was unknown to all New Testament communities. The one and only head of the Church is Christ.

Unfortunately the monarchical structure had already been propagated quite early on (beginning 2nd Century) by Ignatius from Antioch, and has since become the model structure for almost all so-called churches. Even the Reformation did not dare to go back to the way things were before Ignatius, even though the hierarchical structure in the Protestant organisation does not have the same constitutional character as among Catholics where the hierarchical structure with the Pope at the apex has become a salvation issue. As an example, the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ by Boniface VIII (1302) and the decisions of the 1st Vatican council concerning the infallibility of the Pope are quoted here:

“… This one and unique Church, therefore, has not two heads, like a monster, but one body and one head, viz., Christ and His vicar, Peter’s successor, for the Lord said to Peter personally: “Feed my sheep” (Jn 21.17). ‘My’ He said in general, not individually, meaning these or those; whereby it is understood that He confided all His sheep to him. If therefore Greeks or others say that they were not confided to Peter and his successors, they most necessarily confess that they are not among Christ’s sheep, for the Lord said in John: “there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (Jn 10.16)… Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all men that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.” (Bull Unam Sanctam (1302) in: J. Neuner – J. Dupuis: The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, Rev. Ed. 1982, p. 218)

“And so, faithfully keeping to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and for the salvation of Christian peoples, We, with the approval of the sacred Council, teach and define:

It is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of Blessed Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable of themselves, not because of the consent of the Church (ex sese, non autem ex consensu ecclesiae).

But if anyone presumes to contradict this our definition – which God forbid – , anathema sit.” (1st Vatican Council, Session 4, 1870 in: J. Neuner – J. Dupuis: The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, Rev. Ed. 1982, p. 234)

While the Catholics have elevated disobedience to Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:9 to a principle of salvation, we hold fast to the brotherly community which Jesus founded.

c) “daily meetings”

From a historical point of view, we did not start by reading Acts 2:42-47 and then decide to meet together every day. We simply wanted to be together as often and as intensively as possible. Thereafter we saw that God’s spirit had led us to the same community life as the first Christians. In his sermon at Pentecost Peter didn’t preach the “church rule”, “Thou shalt meet thy brothers and sisters every day!”. The Christians simply did it because God’s love had been poured out into their hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5), manifesting itself in brotherly love as Paul writes:

“Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another.” (1Thess 4:9)

Whoever has God’s Spirit, will love his brothers and sisters and have the desire for fellowship and to share his life. When this life is replaced by ritualised ‘church services’, it shows that God’s Spirit no longer has the say.

We are aware that in the course of history, Christians faced situations time and time again, in which community life was very difficult or impossible. But Christians have always wanted to make the best of the current situation because they were led by love towards each other. No one was afraid of having too much fellowship, but a common love for God led brothers and sisters together.

We are thankful that we are living in a time in which external circumstances (working hours, transport, etc.) make it much easier to have daily fellowship. Thus we can put Hebrews 3:13 so much more easily into practice:

“But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,” so that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” (Hebrews 13:3)

Jesus has freed us to be able to have a personal relationship with God and with our brothers and sisters. Community life will obviously therefore, not consist of ritualistic liturgies, but of personal fellowship with each other in which each of us contributes (see 1Corinthians 12:26). The need for rites and rituals arises when the living relationship has died. Wherever spiritual life has ceased, it begins to be imitated through rituals.

The consequence of daily fellowship is that, spiritually speaking, every day is a holiday. Every day we experience fellowship with God and with our brothers and sisters, and for this reason alone we see no need to observe special holidays.

This practice also correlates with the following passages from the NT:

“Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds.” (Romans 14:5)

Still caught up in the Jewish Law, Jewish Christians continued to observe the Jewish festivals. Christians, who had already understood that salvation through Jesus invalidated the Law, made no distinction between days. This holds true also for us, because we know that the Law has been fulfilled in Christ. The transition period from the Old to the New Testament is long gone.

That is why Paul also instructs the Colossians not to

“let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths”, because, as he explains, “these are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” (Colossians 2:16-17)

Anyone who still wants to celebrate festivals today has not understood the meaning of Salvation. Festivals are but a shadow of what is to come. We believe that Christ’s eternal reality has already come and thus we experience the celebration of his presence in the fellowship of the saints every day.

“Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.” (Galatians 4:9-11)

This passage also shows that the observation of “special days and months and seasons and years” is a relapse to the “weak and beggarly elemental spirits”. The exact meaning of these “elemental spirits” is a separate topic which would go beyond the scope of this article. It is clear though, that Paul regards the observation of Jewish Festivals by the Christians dangerous for their salvation, because it amounts to a denial of Christian freedom.

The ‘Christian’ holidays, Easter and Christmas, were not observed by the first Christians. The origin of Christmas can be traced back to Paganism, and Easter is also very strongly interspersed with Pagan customs. These festivals harbour the danger that the one-off events of salvation, namely the incarnation of the Logos and the death and resurrection of Jesus, are remoulded into regularly repeating myths. By this, the resurrection of Jesus becomes a symbol of the reawakening of nature, and Christmas, the Festival of light, which it was originally (the celebration of the invincible Sun-god Sol Invictus). Paganism making a come-back in Christian’ clothing.

In Christ, days and times have lost their significance, but nevertheless the social institution of regular days of rest should be observed. It is good that today, thanks to technological progress, many countries have two days of rest per week. Even in times of social cutbacks this achievement must not be abandoned. Increased productivity should actually lead to the further reduction of working hours.

We do not reject state or federal holidays. In fact, we would even welcome their increase (which today is unfortunately a utopia). It’s also good for non-Christians to be conscious of the fact that work is not the aim of life. A society whose primary goal lies in economic growth contributes to its own downfall.

Of course we are always glad to have more opportunities to be together as a community on public holidays and that long weekends enable us to meet brothers and sisters from further abroad.

d) “Sharing of spiritual and material possessions”

Acts 4:32, “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.”

“Thou shalt not turn away from him that is in want, but shalt make thy brother partaker in all things, and shalt not say ‘that anything is thy own’. For if ye are fellow-partakers in that which is imperishable, how much rather in the things which are perishable?” (Didache 4:8)

Just as with daily fellowship, the sharing of spiritual as well as material possessions is a natural result of the love which God has placed in our hearts.

Members of a well functioning family share with each other. It is not about what is “mine” and “yours”, but rather what is “ours”. If this works within an earthly family, why shouldn’t it be possible within the family of God?

The thinking among unbelievers is: “When it comes to money, friendship has its limits”. In the Church, the attitude is: “Brother, let me share with you.”

For this to be the case it must, of course, be a Christian community. If I cannot trust another person, then I cannot entrust him with my money either. If I know that my brother or sister will handle my money just as carefully as his own, because it is ours, if I know that they are not wasteful with money, and will not just misuse my money for sins such as drinking and smoking, then I can share with them.

As Christians we know that everything we have has been given to us by God to use for him in the best way. Christianity is the end of egotism. The sharing of our material things is an important expression of that love.

The exact way in which community of property can be practised depends very much on the specific situation of each local community. The more intensive the community life is, the more intensive the sharing of property will be.

Above all the sharing of goods has to happen on the basis of a free decision to share one’s possessions (compare Acts 5:4)

What would our critics say if they heard the following quotes passing from our lips?

“Is it permitted in the brotherhood to posess one’s own property? – This is contrary to the testimony of the believers in the book of Acts, where it is written, “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions” (Acts 4:32). Therefore, whoever claims ownership of anything separates himself from the church of God and from the love of the Lord, who taught in word and deed that a man must lay down his life for his friends, then how much more the temporary goods?” (Basil, Lesser Rule 85)

“Those who owned something in the world should be careful in wanting to share it in common once they have entered the monastery.” (The Rule of St. Augustine, Chapter 1)

“The vice of personal ownership must by all means be cut out in the monastery by the very root, so that no one may presume to give or receive anything without the command of the Abbot; nor to have anything whatever as his own, neither a book, nor a writing tablet, nor a pen, nor anything else whatsoever, since monks are allowed to have neither their bodies nor their wills in their own power. Everything that is necessary, however, they must look for from the Father of the monastery; and let it not be allowed for anyone to have anything which the Abbot did not give or permit him to have. Let all things be common to all, as it is written. And let no one call or take to himself anything as his own. But if anyone should be found to indulge this most baneful vice, and, having been admonished once and again, doth not amend, let him be subjected to punishment.” (The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 33)

“But even if anything is sent him by his parents, let him not presume to accept it before it hath been make known to the Abbot. And if he order it to be accepted, let it be in the Abbot’s power to give it to whom he pleaseth. And let not the brother to whom perchance it was sent, become sad, that “no chance be given to the devil”. But whosoever shall presume to act otherwise, let him fall under the discipline of the Rule.” (The Holy Rule of St. Benedict, Chapter 54)

“Community of property is total.” (Frère Roger, The Rule of Taize)

What “the most illustrious children of the Church” (as H.U. von Balthasar calls the founders of the monastic orders) could only achieve by force and threats of punishment, is in the Community of God the work of love where giving springs from a free decision.

To avoid any misunderstandings we want to state for the record that we reject community of property in its absolute form, as described in the aforementioned monastic rules because it opposes human dignity. It is simply degrading for a person to be made to feel dependent on a so-called spiritual leader in everything right down to the smallest articles (book, slate…) of everyday life. The biblical concept of sharing goods, which we also try to adhere to, is built on the principle of owning private possessions from which everyone freely makes their contribution for the good of the community.

“Each of you must give as you have made up your mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor 9:7)

Among Christians it is normal to talk about personal problems, doubts and failings; and this requires a deep level of trust, which we can have through Jesus. Of course Mr. Kluge would have to interpret this as something negative by saying that this is a way of deliberately influencing individuals.

Everyone is constantly being influenced by something. Anyone who claims that they are not influenced by anyone shows that they have a most unrealistic and uncritical view of the world. Of course we influence each other, but not in the way Kluge accuses us of. The reason we are together is so that we can strengthen each other on the path to God through encouragements and admonitions.

We have the freedom to choose who we want to be influenced by. We don’t want to be influenced by the mind-numbing mass media. Through reading the Bible frequently and having fellowship with brothers and sisters, we submit ourselves consciously, yet not without thinking, to the influence of God. Brotherly criticism and admonition is always open and clear. The same cannot be said of those who use psychological tricks or group-dynamics to influence people – this degrades a person’s dignity and such practices have no place among Christians.

Brothers and sisters with whom we share not only certain ritualistic actions but our daily life; whose sins and weaknesses are not unknown to us; who don’t seek their own advantage but want to give; and who are also ready to accept admonitions, are surely more trustworthy than a Guru or Clergyman who, unlike Paul, isn’t prepared to “…share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves…” (1Thess 2:8), and instead keeps himself aloof from others behind his self-assumed title.

e) “No sinners in the community”

Jesus’ own words are completely clear on this matter:

“If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 18:15-18)

Paul too gives his view on this issue:

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?

For … I have already pronounced judgement in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing … with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. …Do you not know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch … Therefore, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth… But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one… ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (Excerpts from 1 Corinthians 5)

“Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.” Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1)

These words were taken seriously in early church practice: in fact they often interpreted them too strictly. Even some modern authors from large “churches” occasionally write clear statements on this matter, even though they did not do anything to promote the actualisation of these thoughts.

“It is now time for the congregation to … [administer] the keys. … Now the judgement of God himself is about to be pronounced upon the sinner. If he shows genuine repentance, and publicly acknowledges his sin, he then receives forgiveness in God’s name (comp. 1 Cor 2:6 seq.). But if he is still unrepentant, the Church must retain his sin in that Name. In other words, the sinner must be excommunicated. ‘Let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican’ (Matt. 18:17). … But excommunication is really nothing more than the recognition of a state of affairs which already exists, for the unrepentant sinner has condemned himself already (Titus 3:10), and before the community had to exclude him. Paul calls excommunication ‘delivering over to Satan’ (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20). The sinner is handed back to the world, where Satan rules and deals death. … The sinner is ejected from the fellowship of the Body of Christ because he has already separated himself from it. He has no further claim on the community. Yet even this extreme measure has one sole aim, the salvation of the sinner: ‘that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Cor. 5:5), ‘that they might be taught not to blaspheme’ (1 Tim. 1:20). Readmission to the community or salvation is the purpose of church discipline in all its stages: it is throughout a ‘pedagogic’ procedure. It is absolutely certain that the Church’s verdict has an eternal validity where the sinner refuses to repent, and it is equally certain that his verdict (which means the inevitable loss of salvation) is no more than the last offer of restoration to the community and of salvation. Thus the Church maintains its sanctification by walking worthily of the gospel. Such a life produces the fruit of the Spirit, and is ordered by the discipline of the Word. Yet all the time the Church is still the community of those whose sanctification is Christ alone (1 Cor. 1:30), the community which is advancing towards the day of the Lord’s return.

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, London 2001, pp.222-223)

After all, church discipline (that is, the readiness to admonish brothers and sisters who sin, and in the case of their unwillingness to change, to separate from them) is a question of love and of the identity of the community. Love doesn’t just stand by and watch sin happen, but warns the sinner of the spiritual danger which they find themselves in. Love doesn’t want to watch passively as a person shipwrecks themself spiritually. The aim of exclusion is, in the end, “so that his spirit may be saved”, even if there is no guarantee that the sinner will repent.

If, despite intensive encouragement and admonition, a person still clings to their sins and resists sanctification, then they have no place in the community of those who are sanctified by God. Confrontation with the world might still help them to see just how much they have lost through their sins. It is hoped, that being “handed over to Satan” (which doesn’t mean that Satan obtains special permission to torment the sinner, but that whoever is not in the community is in the world, where, in Jesus’ own words, Satan is the prince – see John 14:30) will lead to the “destruction of the flesh”: that is, to the abandoning of one’s sinful attitude towards God.

The other issue at stake is the identity of the community. When the Community of the Redeemed has amongst its ranks people who resist the redemptive work of Jesus, and for whom sin is more important than discipleship, it ceases to be the Church.

Of course it’s clear even for us that there has never been a sinless community, nor will there ever be one. When we confess our sins it is not a “verbal admission” but an expression of our fight against sin.

John emphasises in his first letter that, on the one hand, a Christian doesn’t sin (1 John 3:3-10), and on the other hand, everyone who says that he has not sinned, makes God out to be a liar (1 John 1:8-10). These statements do not contradict one another. In Chapter 3 John speaks in general about the life of the redeemed person, who has a completely new attitude towards sin and has stopped doing many of the things which characterised their old life. Life as a Christian is a life in freedom and victory over sin. But as soon as a person starts to endeavour to live a holy life, they will begin to see more clearly just how much is still wrong in their life, and how prevalent sin is.

“…for all of us make many mistakes.” (James 3:2)

If a person follows Jesus’ example in word and deed and shares his life with brothers and sisters, he will naturally have less to do with others. Jesus’ fundamental demand of his disciples was that in comparison with their relationship to him, all other relationships were to have a lower priority.

“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

For Jesus, spiritual relationships have priority over family relationships.

“And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:49-50)

We can only share our lives with others who follow the same Lord. But an obligation to break off all family relationships, as has been imposed from time to time in the Catholic monastic orders, does not exist in the Church of God.

Whereas someone else wrote:

“Therefore the biological parents or siblings of a member of the brotherhood, if they live piously, should be treated and cared for with honour as common parents and relatives by all the brothers. “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven”, says the Lord, “is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matt 12:50) …But if in their disposition they are still entangled in worldly affairs, we who are far from distractions, striving to do what is valuable and pleasing to the Lord, have no fellowship with them. If any of our former relatives come to visit who despise the commands of God and consider worthless the service of piety, we must not welcome them, because they do not love the Lord, who says, ’Whoever does not love me does not keep my words’ (John 14:24). …

It is not at all permitted for a brother to engage in a conversation with either a relative or a stranger, if we do not have the conviction that the conversation will bring about edification and the perfecting of the souls…” (St. Basil, Greater Rules, 33)

What would Kluge say if we wrote something like that? Control of environment? Control of information? A typical sign of a cult! Basil, though, is revered by his “church” as a saint.

In the church of Jesus there are only active members. For this reason a purely formal membership of the Church of Jesus would be absurd. Community life and anonymity oppose each other like fire and water. That is why it is impossible to use the word “church” to refer to groups in which the overwhelming majority of members don’t even accept their own doctrines. When community life is replaced by formalism, it is easy to see that God’s Spirit is not at work.

We do not reproach institutional “churches” for practising infant baptism, but for the fact that the children are not baptised into a community of brothers and sisters in which they will be guided towards a Christian life. The main difference lies not in whether infant baptism or adult baptism is right, but whether the church is made up of believers or formalism.

Likewise enforcing a Church tax would be completely unthinkable for Christians. On the foundation of a loving relationship I share whatever I have with my brothers and sisters. A “church”, which in co-operation with the state, forces its members to pay a certain amount of money, has given up any claim of being the Church of God. If something is from God then the believers stand behind it wholeheartedly and give more than is necessary, without being forced. Compulsory contributions are a no-confidence vote for God and for other believers, and an admission of one’s own unbelief.

In writing about our relationship to outsiders Kluge vacillates in his use of terminology from “people of a different faith” to “Christians outside the Group”.

Common prayer is not possible with people from a different faith (non Christians) for we must be sure that we are praying to the same God. This fundamental thought was self-evident in the first centuries. We gladly pray with people who are sincerely seeking God. In the same way common prayer with Christians “outside the Group” is natural. Our joy is renewed again and again when we find Christians who have found Jesus independently of our community, and we rejoice in the unity we have with them.

It is not ‘belonging to our group’ which is the sign of someone’s Christianity, but the mutual love that we have towards each other which God has placed in the hearts of all his children. When we get to know other Christians, the natural consequence is not only that we endeavour to reach unity, but that we actually reach it. It is unthinkable to write off brothers and sisters in faith as Sectarians as Kluge does, who on the one hand, thinks that we are somehow Christians, and on the other hand calls us a cult, and has never even made the slightest attempt to come to unity with us.

We do NOT see ourselves as an elite community. A division into elite and normal members must never appear among Christians. Each Christian is holy and endeavours to grow in faith. Humble service is our goal, and not arrogance. We have no right to be proud of something which we ourselves have only received.

We are not ready to water down the truth which Christianity lays claim to in order to appear humble. There is nothing arrogant about being convinced of the truth of Christianity (which inevitably means that all other ways are false). This conviction was held by Jesus (John 14:6) and the Apostles (Acts 4:12). We too, intend to cling to this conviction. We have experienced how God called us out of darkness into light, from error into the truth. Now we have the chance to call other people to take the same steps, not because we think we are good, but because we know that Jesus is the only way to God. We want to share the great gift that we have received with others.

We are not Gnostics, thinking of others as ‘captives of the material world’. Matter too, is a part of God’s good creation. We don’t think that we have reached an outstandingly high moral and religious level. What kind of a world are we living in when that which is actually normal is considered to be an insurmountably high level? It is not about whether one ‘makes it’ or not. As Christians we live through the power of God and experience that his commandments are not burdensome.

“For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3)

Concerning Acts 2:42-46 we are not interested in formalistically applying models of community from the first century directly to modern life (as Mr Kluge puts it) and we certainly don’t do that. In Acts 2 it is visible that God’s Spirit filled the young Christians with a love for God and for each other. This love is the steadfast foundation of every Christian community, regardless of the conditions under which Christians are living. The same love that led the first Christians to have daily community and to share their material goods leads us to do the same, even if the concrete realisation of it appears to be different from how it was in Jerusalem in 30 A.D. or in Ephesus in 55 A.D. It hasn’t always been as easy to have daily community as it is for us today. Christians always did their best but circumstances didn’t always allow daily meetings. For us on the other hand, circumstances are favourable and daily meetings are possible. We receive this gift with gratitude, not distinguishing between superior and inferior community models.

Jesus called us to live a holy life. Therefore it is self-evident that the community expects a morally pure lifestyle from its members. It is the teaching of the Bible

e.g. Phil 2:14-15, “Do all things without murmuring and arguing, so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world.”

and the tradition of the early church (e.g. Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians Chapter XXXI “…you know that those whose life is directed towards God as its rule, so that each one among us may be blameless and irreproachable before Him, will not entertain even the thought of the slightest sin.”

Kluge’s intention is not completely clear here. Does he want to praise us, or does he consider the pursuit of morality a typical sign of a cult? Failing to strive for morality is actually a much more conclusive proof that an organisation has ceased to be Church. Assuming that he had the former in mind we would add a minor correction that we usually do not use the expression ‘false Gospel’ to describe a lax lifestyle.

“He was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.” (John 1:10)

The term ‘world’ is used in the Bible in various senses. There is nothing inherently antigodly about this world which is God’s good creation. It is the gift of God which we receive with thankfulness and which leads us to praise God for his glorious creation. That is why we also delight in the many beautiful things we have the privilege of experiencing again and again, be it a spring flower, a rocky gorge, a sunset, a starry night… We firmly reject the Gnostic idea of an evil creation.

In the New Testament the term ‘world’ is also used in a negative sense and describes the people who, through their free, independent decision have set themselves against God. It is completely clear that a Christian can only distance himself from this ‘world’. As disciples of Jesus we are not of ‘this world’, just as Jesus is not from this world (John 17:14+17).

That is why 1 John 2:15-17 is relevant for us:

“Do not love the world or the things in the world. The love of the Father is not in those who love the world; for all that is in the world– the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, the pride in riches– comes not from the Father but from the world. And the world and its desire are passing away, but those who do the will of God live forever.”

Despite this we don’t flee from the world. We live in the world into which Jesus sent us (John 17:18). Escaping the world, as seen in many examples of so-called Saints of various centuries is something we are far from. We neither retreat to the desert nor behind massive monastery walls. None of us would accept a vow or command of silence like among the Trappists (The common name by which the Cistercians who follow the reform inaugurated by the Abbot de Rancé (b. 1626; d. 1700) in the Abbey of La Trappe, were known; and often now applied to the entire Order of Reformed Cistercians.). Nor will we mount the pillars of the ‘Stylites’ (Stylites were solitaries who, taking up their abode upon the tops of a pillar (stylos), chose to spend their days amid the restraints thus entailed and in the exercise of other forms of asceticism.)

Jesus called his disciples to be the light of the world, a city on a hill (Matthew 5:14-16). Through not adopting the standards of this world (Romans 12:2) we can be a light and can lead people to a life which praises God through good deeds.

We live in the world. Most of us have jobs where we want to give our best, but which is not in itself our calling which consists of devotion to God.

“We know that those who are born of God do not sin, but the one who was born of God protects them, and the evil one does not touch them.”

(1 John 5:18).

That does not mean that we renounce our responsibility for the world. But opportunities to take political action are quite limited: on the one hand because that is not our main task; on the other hand because all political powers are so far removed from the basic human moral standards, that any form of co-operation with them is excluded from the outset.

There would be much to do in a world in which it is considered a basic human right to be allowed to murder one’s own child in the womb, in a world which talks about justice and oppresses the poor; in a world which, in the name of balancing budgets continually furthers social cutbacks, not only letting the rich go untouched, but even promoting their prosperity (especially through so-called ‘Christian’ political parties), in a world which gushes about Humanitarianism, equality and friendliness towards foreigners, yet at the same time enacts laws which are increasingly hostile towards foreigners, driving refugees with no rights into the hands of greedy smugglers and often to their death. In short: in a world that has learnt to camouflage extreme cruelty with nice sounding words.

We don’t keep silent about these injustices. But God called the disciples of Jesus to give the world the best thing possible: that is, the Gospel, eternal life in discipleship to Jesus. In every place where people follow Jesus, God’s will for this world becomes reality: people living together in love and righteousness, not xenophobic but full of trust. We are joyful that despite all our sins we may experience this working of God in our community.

The world is not the “black background which makes our concepts seem that much brighter”.

God’s light doesn’t need the shadow in order to be recognised as light. The good is good because it is good and does not rely on evil. Only the bad has to continually pretend to be good, because it would not be able to exist on its own.

Mr. Kluge is right in saying that we see ourselves as being called out of this world. This is true of every Christian. We are called to be Saints (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2) in this world, but we are not from this world (John 17:11,26). If someone says that he is not called out of this world, he admits that he is not a disciple of Jesus, he is not a Christian.

The opinion that “the negative occurrences in the world result from sin” is not held only by us but also by Paul:

Romans 5:12, “, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned”

We certainly want to be on our guard against too primitive conceptions. (The Sabertooth tiger was not a vegetarian. Biological death existed in the animal kingdom from the beginning, long before the first sin.) But we know that the first sin represented a substantial turning point in the relationship between God and Man and that after the Fall man was in a worse position than before, in that it’s often easier to do evil than to do good. We deny the understanding of inherited original sin, in which these negative effects are considered to be sin. This teaching held by almost the entire Christian tradition since Augustine, with varying emphases, we reject as unbiblical and godless.

Every reflection of a world without sin is inherently speculative. We think that God, in his Grace would have protected un-fallen man from sickness and disability. We are not the first to think so either. It is also the conviction of others. “Because sin reigns in the world, illness has an influence and death makes the nature of sin visible.” (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 6. Band 1977, p. 428)

Concerning Mr. Kluge’s criticism, “that physical or mental handicaps are perceived as a punishment from God”, we assert the following:

We have to be very cautious regarding the connection between a specific sin and a specific illness. The book of Job teaches us that it is impossible to conclude that illness is an automatic consequence of sin.

Also Jesus’ words in John 9:3 are plain: Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.”

Jesus refers here only to a single case, but shows that the thinking visible behind the question of the disciples is wrong.

Of course in many cases there are obvious connections between sickness and sin, which lie simply in the nature of the particular sin. A smoker shouldn’t be surprised about his lung cancer, and the effects of alcohol or drug consumption on health are well known.

In 1 Corinthians 11:30, Paul attributes sicknesses and cases of death to sin. Here it does not mean that the individuals who were sick were the worst sinners. The community, through its sins, had backslid to a level which was so close to the world that God was not able to protect them from many dangers anymore. It was those who were the most susceptible to illnesses that were affected by sickness, not the worst sinners. It seems as if nothing happened to the man who committed incest in 1 Corinthians 5.

We also reject the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:5 which holds that the destruction of the flesh refers to bodily harm inflicted through sickness or even death, but we understand the passage to mean that the fleshly attitude, that is, the sin of the excluded person, should be destroyed.

Now and then the Bible shows examples of illness and even death as punishment (Acts 13:11; 5:1-11). But we consider these passages to be exceptions.

To this end it should also be kept in mind that many of our brothers and sisters are employed in the service of the sick and disabled.

We don’t want to close our eyes to the positive things which exist outside of our community; but it is very painful to observe how often good is tied to false teachings. We reject most decidedly the protestant doctrine of the total depravity of Man after the Fall, that a person without God could do nothing good.

As far as having a critical approach to our own preaching and expectations goes, we are conscious of our deficiencies. We know that many people have a much more profound knowledge than us, and we are thankful to be able to learn from others. We want to be on our guard against all forms of bias. On the other hand, even among people who are superior to us in knowledge, false reasoning exists which even simple people can see through.

We must also clearly differentiate fundamental teachings which cannot be questioned, from details in which we often have not yet reached a clear understanding. By dealing with the Bible intensively we can learn more and more and also see through our own false reasoning. We expect others to be open to our criticism and therefore we ourselves also do not want to shut ourselves off to outside criticism.

Concerning the “redefinition” of terms, Mr. Kluge admits that the example he quotes is a one-off case and is not known to us. We also perceive the word “inhumane” to have a negative meaning. But there are certainly differences in the meaning of the word “inhumane”.

It is not inhumane to obey one’s own conscience and to follow what one understands to be the will of God, and to prefer fellowship with brothers and sisters in the Lord to fellowship with one’s own family if they are not in the Lord.

It is inhumane when parents drug their children with toxic substances, kidnap them, lock them up at home, chain them to the heater, deprive them of their passport, unlawfully incapacitate them, keep them locked up for months behind convent walls against their will… All these things have been done to brothers and sisters from our community in the 20th Century. More crimes against Christians in the name of Christendom can be found in history books.

Tolerance

Tolerance is an important principle of every humane society, a virtue which especially our adversaries often don’t grant us. “If a society is to survive and to prosper, tolerance, to a certain extent, is necessary.” (K.Hoermann, Lexikon der christlichen Moral, 1969 Sp.1221)

Tolerance means that everybody has the right to think and to believe whatever he wants. But tolerance does not mean that everything is right. There is but one truth. And this truth must be recognised and grasped in freedom. The catholic principle “that only the truth, not error has a right to be” (Hoermann, Sp. 1221) cost an innumerable number of people their freedom, home, health or life. The truth does not rely on being spread or defended with violence. Those who resort to the argument of violence, as the large “churches” did again and again, show that they do not have the truth. The one and only truth speaks for itself and need not fear the competition of errors and pseudo-truths.

There must be tolerance in the world. Everybody has the right to think and to believe whatever he wants. But if somebody calls themself a Christian they have decided to follow Jesus’ teaching. If they want to believe something else it is their free decision. But they should not call it Christianity.

The church of God is not a gathering of every “Tom, Dick and Harry” – but “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Heresies therefore have no room in the community. But every false teacher continues to have full claim of all his civil rights.

We have to distinguish clearly between errors and heresies. Those who err unwittingly remain open to criticism and are glad to find a way out of their error. In these circumstances patience is necessary to strengthen each other in learning the truth. Those, on the other hand, who consciously live in contradiction to the apostles teaching must not be tolerated within the community – with all due respect to their dignity as a human being.

Every Christian has experienced God’s great patience and experiences it again and again. We are called to bear one another patiently. On the other hand we must be conscious of the urgency of Jesus’ call. It is impossible to put off repentance. Even if many people do not want to accept it, there is a “too late”.

“Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, ‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, as on the day of testing in the wilderness, …” (Hebr 3:7-8. This passage ought to be read in the broader context)

Those who refuse God’s call again and again harden themselves more and more, so that one day they will not be able to change themselves anymore.

In our community we have never believed that the end of the world is at hand. Quite the opposite. This question was one of the first points of conflict in our discussions with Fundamentalists and “Free Churches”.

We strictly reject this egocentric view of the world (“our time must be something special”). It remains a mystery as to which statements of our brothers could have been interpreted so wrongly. Did Mr. Kluge perhaps want to put us into a box only later realising that we don’t fit into it?

In order to help people out of this doomsday madness we have repeatedly dealt with the “belief in the imminent return of Jesus”. Since Mr. Kluge has withdrawn his reproach that we believe in this teaching this is not the right place for a detailed treatment of this topic.

“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36)

It is a pity that Mr. Kluge handles such a complex topic as the understanding of Salvation with only a few very ambiguous statements.

It is correct that we reject the Satisfaction theory of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), which has strongly influenced the understanding of Salvation of the main-stream churches.

An old Catholic work summarises his theory as follows:

“Anselm regards sin as an insult to God, because it robs God of His honour. This insult, which according to God is infinite, demands retribution, compensation for the stolen honour. If this does not occur, there must be punishment (‘aut satisfactio, aut poen’). Due to man’s inequality with God, he is incapable of achieving this satisfaction. To prevent man from perishing eternally this satisfaction had to be offered by a God-man, who, due to his divine nature was able perform a faultless, eternal, moral act, and due to his humanity was able to act on behalf of his fellow humans. This substitutionary satisfaction is effected freely by Christ, whose whole life was dedicated to the honour of God, and whose death atoned for the due punishment of sin. God accepted this act of expiation for us as a work of infinite value.”

(Dr. Bernhard Bartmann, Grundriss der Dogmatik, Freiburg i. B. 1923, p. 237)

This theory shaped theology right into the 19th and 20th Centuries, but is at present ‘strongly contested’ (according to the Lexicon fuer Theologie und Kirche). On the one hand, the description of sin as an ‘insult’ to God is extremely inadequate. Of course, every sin is directly directed against God, but we certainly cannot do God any harm through our sins. Through our sins we destroy our relationship to God, but the change takes place on our side, not on the side of God.

Comp. Isaiah 59:1,2: “See, the LORD’s hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”

On the other hand God in his Grace is in no way bound to any kind of reparation to be able to forgive. The Bible always emphasises the free Grace of God, the unconditional forgiveness (Psalm 32:5; 51:3-6, 16-17; Psalm 79:9; 130:3-4; Proverbs 28:13; Isaiah 1:18; 43:25; 44:22; Micah 7:18-19; Matthew 18:21-35; Luke 15:11-24; Acts 3:19; etc.). If anyone regrets and confesses his sins, he will be forgiven. The God of Israel and Father of Jesus must not be confused with a personification of Karma, in which every bad deed must be balanced out by something good.

What significance does Jesus have in this context? Is Jesus just one example among many (certainly the greatest, but still only an example)?

In numerous passages the NT speaks about Salvation through the death of Jesus, salvation by his blood. His death is compared with a sacrifice, there is talk of forgiveness in his blood. We agree with these statements, they are the unambiguous teaching of the Holy Scriptures. However, what is important is the right understanding of these statements, something we ourselves aim to deepen more and more through many discussions.

The following sentences can help to avoid a wrong understanding of Salvation

1. There is no passage in the Holy Scriptures that leads compellingly to the Satisfaction theory of Anselm (let alone to the false theories in which the death of Jesus was a ransom paid to Satan).

2. The Bible assumes and builds upon the historical fact of Jesus death. Alternatives are not discussed.

3. There is nothing in the NT to suggest that the very nature of forgiveness necessitates the shedding of the blood of Jesus. In fact, the death of the innocent as a condition of forgiveness is contrary to its teaching.

E.g. Matthew 21:37 “Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.'”

4. The death of Jesus was a crime committed by godless people, who expressed their wickedness out of a free will decision and were in no way compelled by God (or anyone else for that matter) to do this.

“None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Corinthians 2:8)

“But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority.

The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.” (Acts 5:29-30)

5. The wickedness of Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate was not necessary for Salvation and didn’t advance it either.

6. Jesus came to call Israel to repentance. Had his preaching been accepted Jesus would not have been murdered, but this would not have hindered salvation, it would have been only beneficial for the salvation of mankind.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

“Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!… For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!” (Romans 11:12+15)

If the Israelites had obeyed Jesus from the beginning, salvation certainly would not have been hindered, but the devotion of Jesus would have led the people to God in a completely different way.

7. As a result of the massive rejection by the Nation of Israel and especially by its leaders, Jesus accepted his death, demonstrating the ultimate consequence of his love and devotion.

8. The biblical term, ‘ransom’ (e.g. Mark 10:45) serves to point out the liberating character of the work of Salvation of Jesus. We were slaves to sin. Jesus freed us from this slavery just like slaves redeemed with a ransom. The question who the ransom was paid to goes beyond the scope of the picture and leads to aporias1. Both possible answers (God or Satan) are in clear opposition the message of the Bible.

9. Likewise, calling the death of Jesus a sacrifice shows on one hand the greatness of his devotion, and on the other hand (especially in Hebrews) it points to the end of the Old Testament sacrifice.

10. The usage of the term ‘blood’ should also be seen within the context of sacrifice-terminology. Moreover, the Jews themselves combined the term ‘blood’ with the term ‘life’.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev 17:11a).

We are saved through Jesus’ blood. That means that Jesus laid down his life in complete devotion for us. It is not the bodily fluid ‘blood’ that saves us in a magical way, but the devotion of Jesus envelops us completely in the love of God.

“Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Hebrews 9:22)

Here it is NOT talking about a principle that God’s ability to forgive is dependent on the presentation of blood. The author of the Letter to the Hebrews simply wanted to describe the situation as it was under the OT law, in order to show that the devotion of Jesus utterly surpasses all of this.

11. Throughout his whole life and in death Jesus was in constant relationship to God and was never left alone by God.

The last words of Jesus, as cited in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” must not be considered separately to the cited Psalm 22 which writes about the subjective experience of a suffering person, who, even in suffering is borne by God.

The Psalm ends with the praise,

“For he did not despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted;
he did not hide his face from me, but heard when I cried to him.” (Psalm 22:24)

12. The Christian understanding of Salvation is not about God being appeased (reconciled), but that we are reconciled to God.

2 Corinthians 5:20: “So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

13. Salvation means more than just the example of a perfect life. Believers experience change and renewal through the power of Jesus in their lives.

2 Corinthians 5:17 “So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!”

1 John 5:18 “We know that those who are born of God do not sin, but the one who was born of God protects them, and the evil one does not touch them.”

14. Salvation through the death of Jesus can only ever be considered in connection with his resurrection. In the resurrection of Jesus his victory over sin and death becomes evident. Through the power of his resurrection we experience our new life with God.

These 14 points set the limits within which we can search for a biblical understanding of Salvation. We do not suppose that we have already fully comprehended everything and we want to penetrate deeper into the greatness of God’s love, which He showed us in the incarnation of the eternal Logos and his perfect devotion throughout his whole life to the point of death.

We find an important statement concerning the work of Salvation in Romans 8:3,4

“For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

God sent his Son to overcome sin. By fighting against sin essentially on the same level as us, yet without sin, he conquered sin. This victory becomes effective in everyone who believes in him. By living according to the spirit we overcome sin and through the power of Jesus we are enabled to devote our lives to the brothers, just as he did for us.

“We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us– and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.” (1 John 3:16)

Laying down one’s life can, in some cases mean dying. But this is not generally the rule. Jesus’ devotion would have been no less significant had Israel repented and Jesus’ violent death been avoided, it would have just been different.

Some of Jesus’ own words can help us to comprehend the mystery of his incarnation for our Salvation:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.” ( 4:18, a citation from Isaiah 61:1 ff)

“For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.” (Luke 19:10)

“I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness.” (John 12:46)

Pilate asked him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37)

There is an increasing number of Catholic and Evangelical thinkers and theologians who question the wide-spread theory of ‘penal substitution’. Some examples are N.T. Wright, Steve Chalke … (quotes to come)

Mr. Kluge’s comment on our definition of the Holy Spirit is exceedingly subjective. To cite the retrospective and emotionally influenced feelings of a ‘past member’ as a foundation for our teaching about the Holy Spirit is absolutely unserious and is tantamount to the lowest form of muck-raking. We never base our criticism of the Catholics or Protestants on feelings, but on historically examinable facts and written documented dogmatic statements. Every other method is unacceptable for Christians.

The subjective impressions Mr. Kluge mentions are certainly not shared by the brothers and sisters. Nor is it possible to prove or disprove anything by impressions.

Our teaching about the Holy Spirit is in agreement with the early Creeds of the church.

In many situations we have experienced the liberating power of the Spirit who sets people free from sin on a continuing basis. (John 8:36; 2 Corinthians 3:17)

In Galatians 5:19-23 Paul describes the difference between a Spirit-led life characterised by the various aspects of the fruit of the Spirit, and the life of an unbeliever, who doesn’t belong to the Holy Spirit characterised by the works of the flesh.

Life in the Spirit means victory over sin!

“Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh.” (Galatians 5:16)

“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

In the older version of his work Kluge reproached us of having an Old Testament perception of God, comparing us with the Jehovahs Witnesses. It is positive that he has withdrawn this reproach which revealed either a lack of knowledge about both the Old Testament and our teaching, or that simply displayed the usage of run-of-the-mill reproaches in absence of any thorough investigation.

We are also glad that our critic nevertheless acknowledges that we have great respect for God. We rejoice above all because we know that there are so many things where we are still so imperfect and we dont always give God the honour he deserves

Reverent Fear and Love to God are not contradictory concepts. We find both in the Old as in the New Testament.

Deuteronomy 6:5 “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.” and

Hebrews 2:3 “…how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him…”

serve only as examples of an Old Testament word about the Love to God and a New Testament passage showing the consequences of disobedience.

True reverence for God and Love are two inalienable aspects of a vital relationship to God.

Now Kluge doesnt reproach us of having an Old Testament perception of God anymore, but one that is regulated by laws. If we consider what those people in the New Testament who wanted to be justified by keeping the law were reproved for, then we discover something completely different to the practice of our community. The Old Testament Law, and even more the Pharisees interpretation of it, was brimming with numerous commands built upon a formalistic level such as regulations about cultic purity, dietary and sacrifice regulations, to a lesser extent also clothing regulations, furthermore the command of circumcision and the keeping of various festivals. Whoever wants to deal more with this topic can read especially Leviticus and Numbers.

Whoever, on the other hand, calls the pursuit of holiness, which should penetrate all areas of ones life “legalistic”, shows that a life of following Jesus is alien to him. To the very people who were in the danger of living according to the law Paul writes in Gal 5:24,

“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

A life of discipleship and of freedom from the Law means to turn from sins, passions and desires. Christian life is always a life of sanctification. Its interesting that the Catholic Critic adds his voice to the chorus of Free Church fundamentalists who, for years have “reproached” us of legalism, because we didnt agree with their often formalistic understanding of the Bible.

Our fight against sin doesnt spring from a fear of angering God. A God who can be angered is a deeply heathen conception which even contradicts the Old Testament revelation. The fight against sin springs on one hand from the insight that a deed is bad and hence should be rejected in itself. On the other hand it corresponds to the nature of the Good God that his children, out of love for him, do good and shun evil.

Following Jesus means to learn from Jesus, i.e. to adopt his ethical standards. The standards of Jesus dont consist of a special elaborate system of rules and regulations, but of a conscious life of devotion to God. Thus Jesus teaches us to distance ourselves from the superficialities of life and to be formed by him even in apparently trivial things. The example given by Kluge (of interpreting the answer of someone else wrongly) is a general communication problem that is probably not possible to avoid completely. The unity we have with each other in belief of course helps us to understand each other better. Maybe Mr. Kluge also misinterpreted something here which came from an unsure source.

The sentence, “To doubt is to question God” is certainly justified in individual cases, above all when someone has already understood much of Gods Truth and then without objective reasons puts this knowledge in question. But Kluge doesnt present any general assessment of doubting.

For a biblical assessment of doubting, see James 1:5-8:

“If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you. But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord.”

In a loving relationship doubts disappear. Doubts are hence a sign of a lack of trust in Gods love. Love can nevertheless not be forced and therefore statements such as those from Kluge are usually not the way to lead someone out of doubts to trust.

If we use the expression “Cheap Grace” now and then, we subscribe to the criticism of D. Bohoeffers expressed in his work The Cost of Discipleship.

“Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace.

“Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack’s wares Grace is represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?

“Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian “conception” of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. The Church which holds the correct doctrine of grace has, it is supposed, ipso facto a part in that grace. In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.”

“Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything, they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. “All for sin could not atone.” The world goes on in the same old way, and we are still sinners “even in the best life” as Luther said. Well, then let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That is what we mean by cheap grace, the grace which amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs. Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves.”

“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, excerpt from The Cost of Discipleship)

This prolonged quotation from Bonhoeffer’s work should serve to show that even people who were entangled in the institutional state church system knew of the danger of this false conception of Grace and pointed it out with urgency.

We must clearly repudiate the reproach of Justification through deeds. (Interestingly this reproach is made by a representative of the organisation whose justification through deeds was the cause of the Reformation). The notion of grace is not only verbally acknowledged among us. We are conscious of our dependence on God, from whom we have received everything that we can give him. The actions of a Christian life are not the reason for, but the result of salvation.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God– not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Faith bears fruit. If the fruit is missing it shows that the faith, too is missing. Faith without sanctification is no faith at all.

“Pursue peace with everyone, and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” (Hebrews 12:14)

“Only the one who believes is obedient, and only the one who is obedient believes.” (D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship)

Whoever thinks that he can earn his place in Heaven has not understood what Christianity is all about.

“…and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6)

We must not confuse cause and effect. The fact is that because we are in heaven we experience Gods dynamic power in our lives that leads us to a new life, which is completely different to what the world expects.

What would Mr Kluge say about sentences like, “Works of neighbourly love are the Key to Heaven”, or, “Works of love are always a means to come closer to God.” had he heard them from our lips? In our case he would have probably detected salvation by works, something he wouldnt reproach “Mother Teresa” of. (Quote from “Mother” Teresa, A Simple Path, 1995)

Faith, discipleship is more than just a Hobby. If God determines our life, its clear that we will submit all areas of our life to him. “Make the most of the time.” (Colossians 4:5)

That also means that we allow our time to be directed by God. When we allow our lives to be led by Gods will, some of what was earlier important for us will become unimportant. Its not about forbidding hobbies and pastimes, but about the knowledge that the time is too precious to be whiled away. Whoever gets to know God has basically different standards. Jesus spoke clearly of the priorities of the life of a disciple (Luke 14:26-33). Whoever loves him doesnt experience these priorities as a pressure, but as liberation to be able to focus on the essentials.

Mr. Kluge likes to confuse cause and effect. If the practice of the group anyhow determines what a biblical lifestyle should be like, why do we occupy ourselves then, as he acknowledges, long and intensively with the Bible, and especially, as he also knows, with a strong interest in the practical life? If the words of the Bible dont bounce off us completely, the result would have to be that the biblical principles determine our lifestyle. We are in any case open for suggestions for improvement with a biblical basis.

The comment that James 2:14-26 is of great significance for us we want to consider a compliment. We dont want to devalue scripture, like Martin Luther, by despising this letter as a straw Epistle and to banish it from the Bible (Luther wanted to do the same with Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Compare the prefaces to the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, the Revelation of John from 1522). Certainly the passages which emphasise Justification through faith are not less important for us. James and Paul agree in this point, while emphasising different aspects.

How is James 2 visible in the life of the “church” represented by Mr. Kluge?

“For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ.”(2 Corinthians 4:5)

“Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching…” (1 Timothy 4,16)

Re: “Basic premise”

We are conscious that Mr. Kluge was confronted with extremely insufficient information sources. So its partly excusable if he reproduces our teaching distortedly. It is however noticeable that in his representation he simply looked for what is negative, and that he presents things that are basically positive as being worthy of criticism.

The method of citing separate statements, often coming from unsure sources in order to derive “the teaching of the Group” is neither serious nor worthy of a theologian. If we assessed Catholics and Protestants according to what we heard once from the mouth of one of their members, the result would prove much more devastating than it really is on the grounds of the official doctrinal documents alone. We place higher expectations on ourselves than on the official “churches”, therefore we expect every brother to know the biblical teaching well so that he can give it further reliably. But there have surely been situations in which some brothers or sisters couldnt explain some teachings sufficiently or even in some details expressed incorrect thoughts. More frequent, however, was probably the case that someone we were talking with misunderstood something, or because of prejudices wanted to misunderstand. As a theologically educated person Mr. Kluge ought to have been more critical of his sources.

Even if it is difficult for Mr. Kluge to determine the specific goal or the doctrine of “the Group”, what motivates us is not the rejection of others, but:

“Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.

I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.” (Philippians 3:7-12)

The knowledge of God in Christ is what motivates us to study the Bible and to share in the fellowship with the brothers. It is very sad that many who call themselves Christians and Church do not strive for this knowledge which has been revealed by God, and that their preaching and practice contradict the New Testament. It would be loveless to remain silent on this matter.

Our positive commitment to Jesus leads to what Kluge criticises as an existence in “opposition to other Christians and churches”. Our driving force is not pessimistic criticism, but love that wants to show others the error of their ways. Whoever sees someone in danger and doesnt warn him makes himself guilty.

“If I say to the wicked, “You shall surely die,” and you give them no warning, or speak to warn the wicked from their wicked way, in order to save their life, those wicked persons shall die for their iniquity; but their blood I will require at your hand.”(Ezekiel 3:18)

Unfortunately Kluges own critical opposition becomes clear from his own article. This opposition is an attitude that has a long tradition in “Christian” history. Thankfully the days are long gone when the great “churches” persecuted their enemies with crusades, torture, by burning them at the stake, and in milder cases with banishment and dispossession. But this murderous attitude, which has for centuries characterised those who to this day pass themselves off as the true representatives of Christianity, has assured that the name of Christ is connected with the greatest criminals in history.

“For, as it is written, The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”(Romans 2:24)

We certainly dont exist in opposition to other Christians, on the contrary: We rejoice in every brother we get to know. The spirit of God leads the Christians from a diverse array of environments together into the unity of the body of Christ.

We are not a new church. For that reason we consider it praise that its said of us, “Only on rare occasions have they developed their own independent and positive initiatives.” We hold to the positive initiatives of Jesus, Peter, John, Paul, Barnabas and James; i.e., to those of the New Testament.

We are not ashamed to adopt what people of former generations recognised to be right, for example about the Trinity, the teaching about Grace, the True Presence of Christ at Holy Communion etc., and to think it through again and again. What would Mr. Kluge reproach us of if we were really “theologically creative” like, for example, the Jehovahs Witnesses? All theological creativity must be confined to the realm of Gods revealed truth.(finds its boundaries within Gods revealed truth.) Whoever disregards these boundaries, as the aforementioned Jehovahs Witnesses, leaves the foundation of Christianity. No matter what one does, Kluge finds grounds for criticism.

Mr. Kluges ascertainment of a disinterest in theological discussions (how does he know this?) is not completely compatible with his confirmation that “discussions of this nature take place at quite a high intellectual level.” (The English version of Kluge’s work contains a misleading wrong translation. The right translation is as is quoted above and not “…discussions of this nature take place at quite a high intellectual naive”)

We agree with the three major Creeds of Faith of the ancient church (the Apostolic Creed, the Nicean-Constantinopolian Creed, and the Athanasian Creed), because they reproduce the authentic teaching of the Apostles, even though the church at the time of the formulation of those creeds had already distanced itself in many points from the principles of the first church.

Teaching and life form a unity. Theology without the pursuit of holiness is blasphemy. Pure concentration on leading an ethical life without corresponding theological foundation, leads to a humanistic concept and away from God. We are conscious that mental inertia/laziness in thinking ultimately destroys the moral foundations. We want to love God with all our mind (Mt 22:37), whereby thinking through the teaching is not just the task of a few theologically educated people. Every Christian endeavours to understand the revelation of God as well as possible, of course, each one according to the gifts given him and in humility, full of gratitude, conscious that God has revealed it to the simple. (Mt 11:25)

“For no one can lay any other foundation…” (1 Corinthians 3:11)

The sole founder and leader is Jesus Christ. “The Group” was founded in May 30 AD (for more details read Acts 2). In the course of a turbulent history, Jesus again and again called people out to follow him. We are not the first, nor are we the last Christians.

Since God calls people continuously it should not be surprising that at the end of the 70s/beginning of the 80s in the 20th century some Christians in Vienna found each other and henceforth did not want to live alone anymore. None of those concerned had the intention to establish “a Group”. This thought was far from our minds. It is an act of human pride when someone wants to found his own group or community. The will of God is the unity of all believers. Factions and self-conceit are most sharply rejected in the New Testament (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:10-13). Christians seek unity with other Christians and not separation from the community. So at the beginning we also hoped to find a community. What we found however were only individual Christians, but no community. Every “confession” we encountered, whether large or small raised its own traditions above the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Biblically based criticism was dismissed (most sharply from the so-called Bible Believers). So we had to face the fact that the assembly of believers didnt exist in our geographic vicinity and that according to Gods will, we ourselves were what we had been searching for in vain, namely the Church of God in Vienna.

The decision to share a common flat must not be confused with the founding of a group. The fact was that most of the brothers and sisters didnt come from Vienna and lived scattered throughout various towns and regions and we had no place where we could gather undisturbed. The reason that Gottfried “characteristically” didnt share our flat was that he, as one of the few Viennese brothers, had his own flat, which wasn’t very far from the community flat.

The fact that the words of a sensation-journalist from 1982 are being regurgitated to this day shows that there is actually nothing so exciting about us for the world to see. No sex-scandals, no violent crime, just harmless “cloth bags” … For once something quite different to the crimes committed by various “churches” over the centuries in the name of Jesus which cost millions of people their lives and their freedom.

Concerning the exclusion of Gottfried, which Kluge mentions briefly, we wish firstly to refer the reader to the thoughts summarized in Chapter about “The expulsion of disobedient members” and “No sinners in the community”. God shows no favouritism. We are on the one hand thankful for everything that God gave us through Gottfried, but we were not able to turn a blind eye to his sins. Precisely because our fellowship is not dependent on a particular human authority – because we are not a “Holic Group”, but a community which desires to follow no one other than Jesus – we had to separate from him, as the common Biblical basis was no longer present.

The assumption that the aim of his continuing study of theology was alone to collect information to use against the “other churches” is incorrect. Theology as a study of the Words of God on a scientific level is very valuable. Its just a pity that most of the theologians dont want to follow the God whose Word they want to fathom.

Concerning “expansion” into various former Eastern-bloc countries it needs to be said that many things were not a result of our planning, but that God led us to people from these countries. If anyone wants to decipher a special strategy, then its not a matter of our human strategy.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” Mt 5:11-12

As Christians we are used to having people talk distortedly about us . It shouldn’t disturb us, then, that various “cult-experts” have made us into an object of their investigation, especially since some of what they have written about our life and teaching can provoke people searching for the truth to think more deeply.

As some reproaches are in direct contradiction to the reality, we consider it appropriate to supply a counter-representation, which provides people who are interested with the possibility to get to know both sides. The structure of our apologia (definition: formal defence or justification) holds to that of the article by Mr Kluge in order to allow the reader an objective comparison. In our comment we will, however, place the main emphasis on doctrinal arguments and won’t go to the trouble of refuting each and every absurd reproach. The truth speaks for itself.

During the preparation of this comment (2000/2001) Mr Kluge has made some changes to his work. Thus some of what we have written refers more strongly to an earlier version of his work. Nevertheless we retained these passages, as many people are familiar with the older version which deals with some long-standing accusations. Later updates of Kluge’s work remain largely unaddressed.

Because the apologia sticks closely to the structure of Kluges article, some points are addressed several times, as in his work. It may be hard to understand some references without knowledge of the discussed work. But we hope that despite some uncertainties, even someone who doesn’t know Kluges article can gain clarity about the church of God, which has been written off as a sect.

Who are “we”? As mentioned repeatedly in Kluge’s article we are strictly against having any special name for the simple reason that we don’t want to be anything other than Christians (Acts 11:26), disciples of Jesus (Acts 6:7), saints (Romans 1:7), brothers (Acts 1:15), church of Christ (Romans 16:16), children of God (John 1:12)… That is what the Bible calls the people who follow Jesus. To follow Jesus… that’s what we want, nothing more, nothing less. This is our life and our goal. Every special title separates us from our Lord. We follow Jesus and no one else. The only thing that binds us together is the common desire to live as Christians. Our legal status is that of a circle of friends, not a club or an association, nor an official religious community or any other type of organisation. Nothing but the love for God and for the brothers binds us together.