J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 119

Religion as a Sign of Understanding

Eugen Biser

A

T the end of the first book of his cultural-critical writing,Morgenröte (1881), Nietzsche sees himself standing “at the deathbed of Christianity;” and in the clear-sightedness of this situation hebelieves he sees how the belief in God originated so that—in an allusion
to Constantine’s dream-vision, to whom the victorious sign of the cross
was shown with the signature “In hoc signo vinces,” he deduced thefinal aphorism: “There may now be 10 to 20 million people among thevarious nations of Europe who no longer believe in God—, is it too
much to ask that they give each other a sign? As soon as they recognize
each other they will reveal themselves,—and they will immediately
become a power in Europe and, fortunately, a power between the peoples! Between the sinners! Between rich and poor! Between the commanding and the subjugated.”1
At first, Nietzsche’s appeal is not so very reminiscent of a sign needing to be given; rather it is of a sign of the times which—in the shape ofthe liberating “turning point” in 1989—is written on the Wall in theoversized letters of this era.2 It is, like all signs of the times, ambiguous.
Based on its positive meaning, it infers the end of the divided world,
freedom for those suppressed up to now and thus for all, abolition of theantagonism of East and West with its destructive consequences, and,from a Christian point of view, the paradigm of a godly treatment of history and the category of a new understanding of the resurrection.

The Central Challenge
Since unlike a century ago, this does not concern just 10 to 20, but over
200 million people who no longer believe in God or who have—in retrospect to the western territories—renounced religion, Christianity and thechurch.
At the same time however, it is apparent this new atheism exhibits amanifestation distinct from the previous. Seen in the Eastern perspective, especially important for the mobilization of the religious energy
119

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

120

ページ 120RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

reserves, the following approximate impression arises: it is no longer theclassical, and as such, argumentative atheism as it emerged from thedetachment process with its separation strategies put into motion by theage of enlightenment, and as it—highly revealing—had dismissed withJohn Leslie Mackie’s posthumous work “The Wonder of Theism”(1981) and had withdrawn from the present dispute. It is also not theatheism of the postmodern “arbitrariness” which had broken with thethinking in the horizon of the “Encompassing” (Karl Jaspers) and fromthe position of the subject, which is identical with itself. It is definitely
not the “distressed” atheism, as viewed from the Second Vaticanum; anatheism which inflamed itself through the mistakes of the religious communities, but an atheism which emerged from the systematic exorcism
of Christianity; an atheism which won its identity in the process of an
oppression of faith through the decades.3
This comprises the hardly recognized central challenge of faith inthese times, since faith—as freedom, hope and peace—belongs to thehighest goods of humanity. They will not fully come into effect, as they
are deprived and withheld from the majority of humanity.
This is basically not the missionary interest but the spiritual hygienethat once again helps the acceptance of the work of the fall of Communism, which completed freedom and hope for all and brought about aworldwide promise of peace and the acceptance of the belief in God,
where this was suppressed for decades.
The critical consequence arising through this for the mission strategy—described with the term “new-evangelization”—is that faith cannot
be imparted in the traditional patronizing doctrinal way because to thevictims of the atheistic propaganda it had been portrayed as the embodiment of an inhuman ideology.
Such a presentation would only revive the meanwhile half-forgotten
objections and give rise to new opposition. Together with other reasons
which arise from the midst of faith, exactly this consideration indicates areally new interpretation which seeks to express the “old truth” (Pieper)in the present times and conditio humana in an appropriate form andlanguage.
The mission’s gigantic dimension results in a fundamental consequence: it cannot possibly be coped with by a single religious denomination or religion, since this would take the united energy of all, who
still “believe in God.” And this implies, with the words of Nietzsche,that, despite all differences, they must give each other a sign of understanding to become aware of their power.

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 121

RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

121

Consensus and Differences
Primarily the three revelations or Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—can be considered to be in the wide field of the world
religions. Before reflecting on their respective strengths, they would
have to reach a fundamental consensus in their very different answers to
the question about the entity of the Revelation.
This is because Islam sees the Revelation of God in form of a holy
script, the Koran, Judaism sees it in form of “words” which were issued
to the bearers of the Revelation; Christianity however sees it in thehuman manifestation of God.
Concerning the question of the Revelation, the religions are split on
the question of its purpose.
For the two Abrahamic religions Judaism and Islam, it is primarily aquestion of moral instruction for their believers who should orient themselves on the holiness of God through the help of the Revelation.
Christianity has morals, yet its message does not unfold in them.
Rather, the realm of God, the freedom of humanity and his elevation
to the fellowship with God stand in the center of the message.
Therefore the conflict, which was carried out between reason and revelation during the Enlightenment, does not dissolve through the insight,
as Lessing put it, to relieve man from that which he could have gained
through his own effort of thinking but answers the question philosophy
and science are trying to clarify in vain—the question of the meaning oflife.4The coveted fundamental consensus could then exist in the mutualassumption that God had to break His eternal silence and had to emerge
from the darkness of His seclusion if man is to be imparted that which itneeds to find the meaning and moral shaping of life, since—in thisrealm—it attained merely sketches and not fully valid solutions.
However, despite this agreement, far-reaching differences remain,each of which concerns central positions of Christianity. Concerning thedifferences to Judaism, it is incomprehensible for Judaism that Christians place their hopes on “a crucified person” (c. 10, 2), as Justin says
in his Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon.
That is the reason, why the comparison with Jesus, who was bereft of
all “honor and splendor” and who was strained by “the worst curse” (DT22, 23) with the Son of Man, who was destined to eternal rule as in the
Vision of Daniel, is unacceptable.
Next to Auschwitz, especially the theological reflection on the concept of God pushed by Hans Jonas brought a drastic change to thisJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

122

ページ 122RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

topic. It could lead to a reciprocal self-perception: of Judaism with its
history of suffering in the cross of Jesus and of the Christian faith
towards the crucified in the mirror of the Jewish history of suffering.5
Concerning the difference to Islam, it sees the idea of Jesus being theson of God and the dogma of the trinity based herein as “an atrocity,” asthe fifth sura expresses (5, 73). Küng comments that the insight by
Adolf von Harnack, which was confirmed by Adolf Schlatter (1926)
could lead to Islam being considered “a reshaping of the Jewish religion
which was itself reshaped by the Gnostic Judaism-Christianity on the
grounds of Arabianism through a great prophet.”6 Therefore, theJudaism-Christianity, discarded by the Church, lives forth to this daywith some of its impulses in a preserved way in Islam, as is depicted inform of the Eboniten.7
Since Islam represents the prototype of a religion primarily based on
writings, the approach could also be supported in a media-theoreticalway. As dying Buddha comforts his disciples with the words thateverything about the teaching but nothing about he who discovered itmattered, so does the Koran contain the “very own” words of Allah,
whereas Mohammed was inspired only through undeserved mercy that
He is “one Allah” (Sura 41,6), he on the other hand was “a human being
as a messenger” (Sura 17,94). All weight therefore lies on the message,
which is the message itself. The message is the medium. Whereas toChristianity, the words “The medium is the message” applies, as
McLuhan expressed.8
On a higher level of reflection, an understanding should be initiatedsince the messenger, who in ancient times occasionally had to die fordelivering bad news, is, as this extreme case teaches us, not as uninvolved as Buddha and Mohammed wanted to believe.
On the other hand, he is not as completely wrapped up in it as theChristian equation presumes. For the documentation of the message ofJesus embodied in the writings of the New Testament this means that the
self-dignity befits that which is granted by the ecclesiastical doctrinewith the qualification of being an inspired writing. For the Koran itmeans that it is legitimate to ask about the human condition of its creation and that the hagiographic fundamentalism finds no justifications in
its origin. But of what does the specific energy of the two competing
Abrahamic religions exist and how could it be made productive for the
discussion of atheism?

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 123RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

123

The Specific Contribution
To begin with Islam, this energy obviously derives from the unprecedented realization of how “religio” is generally understood even if this is
not the only possibility: re-bonding of man who was released in its creatureness to the reality of its creator and Lords. Since this re-bonding
solidifies in relation to the extent as God—almost in the way of theAnselmic proof—is thought of in strict absoluteness, identity and definiteness. According to the Islamic interpretation, Mohammed continued
and concluded the work of Jesus exactly herein.
While Jesus overcame the ambivalent image of God in the Jewish tradition and exclaimed it to be the saving unambiguousness but caused the
Trinitarian “variety” through being the son of God, Mohammed also
eliminated this supposed pluralism through his creed of the absoluteone, unchangeable and eternally-identified-with-Himself God. Yet thislent the bonding to Him an intensity and solidity no other religion,
including Christianity, had achieved.
This is because everything that could be known by God and everything that should be done in His name stands in the Koran, which contains the thoughts and the decree of the will of Allah and as such allows
no interpretation or inquiry. Put in technical terms, it causes man to “getin touch” with God and therefore reaches its unique intensity. If thepower of “doctrinaire” atheism is to be broken, this intensity must be
activated.
But what will Judaism’s contribution be for the achievement of thisgoal? A long time before this question was posed, Martin Buber gave
the answer in the form of his thesis on the superiority of the Jewish
Emuna-faith as compared with the Christian form of belief which isbased on phrases.9 The trusting faith also shared by Jesus and anchoredin the reality of God was compared to the attempted circumscribed
truths of religious contents, which is the more original one and therefore
the religious way lived and taught by the prophets of Israel. Comparedto the contribution of Islam this is merely the reminiscence of its Jewish
Origin. What, however, is the specific Jewish contribution to overcoming the “fool”—also mentioned in the Anselmic proof of God—who(according to Psalm 15, 2) says in his heart: “There is no God?”An indication of an answer to this question are the signs of the times
which, as remarked above, are written on the wall of this age especiallyembodied in the both drastic and gentle fall of Communism in 1989.
This is because the prophets of Israel insist that God “speaks” not only
through words but also through historical events and makes His will

J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

124

ページ 124RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

known. In the bloody subjugation of the northern realm through theAssyrian and the conquest of Jerusalem and the deportation of its upperclass through the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, Yahweh intervened
punitively in the history of His people who had broken the covenant justas He had freed them from the Egypt’s house of slavery in the distantpast, had led it to its religious identity and had made it His people
through the difficult task of wandering the desert for 40 years as, above
all, the prophet Ezekiel describes in the drastic and fascinating
metaphoric.
Compared to this, the liberal fall of Communism brought release fromdespotic arbitrariness and regimentation to countless people and theworld the end of the East-West-Conflict, which had caused distraught inpolitical, economical and cultural relationships. It was brought without aleader, without strategy and especially without bloodshed in a virtuallyparadigmatic form, the case of a historic event that can either be accepted as inexplicable or must be understood as a consequence of a divineintervention.10
There is however, another answer to the question about the specificcontribution of Judaism, which leads back to the contribution, which
Islam is expected to give. Resuming the thought that Helmut Merkleinpresented on the problem of God’s singularity the answer assumes thatthe central concept of Jesus’ message, which is the coming of theKingdom of heaven which has already dawned in Himself, stands in asemantic correlation to God’s singularity provided that it expresses thesuperiority of God of the covenant of Israel over the pagan people andthe disempowerment of its gods.11
In Jesus’ world of prayer, this corresponds to the request to hallow the
divine name. God hallows it through sitting in judgment on those fallen
to polytheism and creates a holy people Himself, which indulges Him as
the only one. Through this, Jesus refutes the accusation of having
entered a plurality into the monotheistic image of God more convincingly than arguments would ever be capable of doing. Yet does it make aspecific contribution to elucidate God’s singularity?

The Central Achievement in Life
The question refers to the central achievement in the life of Jesus. The
question receives this importance because it establishes Christianity’s
identity. It divides Christianity from Judaism without harming its rebonding in as far as it doesn’t refer to the singularity but rather to theunambiguousness of God. The God of Israel is, despite His singulari-J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 125

RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

125

ty—just as non-Christian monotheism in general—semantically divided,
after all, by the fact that the loving God of the covenant is at the sametime the merciless judge.
This is hardly expressed more keenly than at the end of Martin
Bubers Reden über das Judentum where he speaks of the appeal of the“again and still concealed” and everything finally leads to the sentence:“In such a state we await His voice, may it come out of the storm orout of the silence following it. May His future appearance not liken any
past one; we will recognize our cruel and kind Lord.”12
In comparison to this the achievement in the life of Jesus receives its
full profile. Since he did not only recognize the political brisance of thisimage of God which did persuade compassion yet also seemed to justify
the religiously concealed act of violence; it also did not correspond withhis own experience with God which culminated in his awareness of
being His son.
Out of political concern and also through inner desire he therefore
interfered in His people’s—and communicated it through humanity’s—
idea of faith by erasing that which caused fear and fright from its imageof God and instead brought to light the face of the unconditionally loving father. Nothing that had to do with religiously motivated violence
and intolerance could stand its ground before this. In this way, Jesus
caused the greatest revolution in the history of religion in the gentlest
way thinkable: a correction in the service of God’s unambiguousness.
Through this, Jesus enters into an affinity to the oldest as well as tothe youngest Abrahamic religion, both of which owe the strength oftheir access to the believers to the same motive. Since in both cases it is
the consequence of the intensity that the relation to God gains when—
formulated Anselmically—God is thought of as the unimaginable one,since then the relationship towards Him is reversed and the idea of Him
is converted into being moved by Him.

To be Moved Stirringly
Of the three demonstrated possibilities, the middle one is without adoubt the most topical one. To the followers of a religion which counts
on a divine interference in the history of mankind it implies that theycan enter the analysis of atheism with the rediscovery of a current experience of salvation. In the realm of religion, empiricism matches
unequally greater evidence than could ever be assumed through proof orconclusions.
Initially Christianity can only agree with this in a self-critical gratefulJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

126

ページ 126

RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

manner. Self-critical because it hasn’t got the intensive access to thepiety and life-design of its followers as Islam and because it—contrary
to Judaism—has forgotten to pay attention to the sign of the times which
God has written through his power over history.
Its relationship to its followers would, however, intensify if, withregard to Mohammed’s teaching of God it were willing to newly
acknowledge the revolutionary achievement of Jesus through which heled the ambivalent image of God of his times to the fear-overcoming
unambiguity. Yet from Judaism it would have to learn to pay attention to
the sign of the times more consciously and carefully and to question
their religious relevance in the sense of Jesus’ word of admonishment(Mt 16,3).
Nevertheless, concerning His own contribution, it results from thereligious central event of the present, the religious-historical change andparticularly its axial rotation concerning the relation of Jesus towards
faith in him and his message. If up until now Christianity stood so muchunder the sign of receptiveness that it could be described as obedientsubjugation, then today the insight is growing that it is dialogical andthis means it is understood as a synergism of believers and believed andmust be discovered in its creativity.
After all, in the meantime the symptoms are increasing that the one
who is believed in interferes effectively and noticeably in the executionof faith. Without a doubt, Christianity owes its doctrinal form to the factthat in the retinue of the Resurrection, the crucified, the messenger
turned into the message, the awakener of faith turned into the object offaith and the teacher turned into the embodiment of the teaching. Yet
today, as in all past times of change, a countermovement to this development is beginning. The believed-in steps out of the shrine of concretization; the “Lord” descends from the rostrum of His lordliness; and He
who was established as the teaching begins to teach in a new spiritualtherapeutic manner.

The Prerequisite of Cooperation
To the extent to which religious awareness is determined by this occurrence, the shadow is lifted which atheism throws on today’s life-world.
This is because the conflict with it is already decided in favor of faiththrough the fact that the one who is believed in comes onto the scene
to—as once to the despairing father—call to anybody who wants to hear
it: “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” (Lk 8, 50)
But will the Abrahamic religions which have been estranged sinceJ ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

ページ 127

RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

127

times immemorial—and on account of the cultural situation they are theones who are primarily challenged—bring themselves to settle theirconflicts in order to bundle their strength to overcome the mutual opponent? Though experience teaches us that we most probably must wait
for the second point to occur, the first point can be hoped for concerning
the superior challenge. A consequent effort of the three religions to analyze their conflicts and to approach one another is therefore on the agenda.
Of course, this seems to least-correspond to the goal aimed for. The
reason for this is tolerance stands under the impression of being indulgence and not of being strength. The general opinion is a person exerting tolerance makes concessions concerning his principles. For “thesake of peace,” he holds back his convictions and at least lacks staunchness, insofar as he doesn’t give up his claim for truth at least in a tacticalmanner.
Yet this is obviously a very widespread but deficient understanding of
tolerance. Actually, tolerance is a great feat comprised of the capability
to take on the different-ness of the other without inconsequently adapting to it or weakly being crushed by it.
Tolerance is the preformed royal road in the mythological figure ofAtlas and in the Christological figure of the Lamb of God, which isloaded with the burden of sin of the whole world, in such a way that theconflicts of a widely contradictory world dominated by contrasts can beendured peacefully with one another and cooperatively. But being agreat feat, tolerance does not lead away from the task set by the atheistic
challenge; rather it leads right into the center of its solution.
Notes
Friedrich Nietzsche, Morgenröte. Gedanken über die moralischen Vorurteile I,(translated from German), § 96.
2
See the passage: “Fehlten Tote?” [“Were dead missed?”], in my writing: Hat derGlaube eine Zukunft? [Does faith have a future?] (Düsseldorf, 1997), pp. 85–96.
3
John Leslie Mackie, Das Wunder des Theismus. Argumente für und gegen Gott [Themiracle of theism. Arguments for and against the Existence of God] (Stuttgart, 1985);
see my writing: Glaubenskonflikte. Strukturanalyse der Kirchenkrise [Conflicts in faith.
Structural analysis of the church crisis] (Freiburg, 1989), pp. 21–28.
4
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts [Education of
the Human Race], § 4; see H. Thielike, Offenbarung, Vernunft und Existenz. Studien zur
Religionsphilosophie Lessings [Revelation, Sense and Existence. Studies on the religious philosophy of Lessing] (Gütersloh, 1957), pp. 57–76.
5
Helmut Merklein, Studien zu Jesus und Paulus [Studies on Jesus and Paul](Tübingen, 1987), p. 7; Hans Jonas, Der Gottesbegriff nach Auschwitz. Eine jüdische
Stimme (Frankfurt, 1987); see my contribution about the loss of the attributes and the1J ̲Orient̲05 06.2.1 4:54 PM

128

ページ 128

RELIGION AS A SIGN OF UNDERSTANDING

answer of Jesus on the question of the Existence God in the present in: Glauben, Wissen,
Handeln. Beiträge aus Theologie, Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft. Zu Grundfragen
christlicher Existenz [Faith, Knowledge, Action. Contributions from theology, philosphy
and natural science. On fundamental issues of Christian existence], Editor: Von A.
Franz (Würzburg, 1994), pp. 3–16.
6
Adolf von Harnack, Dogmengeschichte [Outlines of the History of Dogma] (Leipzig,1939), p. 537.
7
H.J. Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums [Theology and History of the Judaism-Christianity] (Tübingen, 1949), p. 342.
8
Marshall McLuhan, Die magischen Kanäle. Understanding Media (Frankfurt, 1979),
pp. 17–32. The paragraph about Christ’s hermeneutics refers to the synergy of this formula with the introductory words of John’s prologue.
9
See his written polemic: “Zwei Glaubensweisen” [Two Types of Faith] (Zurich,1950), p. 15 and following pages; 22 and following pages; see my writing: Buber für
Christen. Eine Herausforderung [Buber for Christians. A Challenge] (Freiburg, 1988),
pp. 105–116.
10
Again see the passage: “Fehlten Tote?” [“Were dead missed?”], in my writing: Hat
der Glaube eine Zukunft? [Does faith have a future?] (Düsseldorf, 1997), pp. 85–96.
11
Helmut Merklein, Die Einzigkeit Gottes als die sachliche Grundlage der Botschaft
Jesu [The singularity of God as the objective basis of Jesus’ message]. In: JbBiblTh 2,
Neukirchen-Vluyn (1987), p. 13, p. 32.
12
Martin Buber, Der Jude und sein Judentum. Gesammelte Aufsätze und Reden [TheJew and his Judaism. Collected writings and lectures] (Köln, 1963), pp. 182–183.