Categories
Christianity Today Europe Middle East Published Articles

The German Theologian Bringing Protestants and Catholics Together

Image courtesy of Thomas Schirrmacher

Eleven American Pentecostal pastors sat nervously with Pope Francis at the Vatican in June 2016. The meeting, arranged by Thomas Schirrmacher, then chair of the theological commission of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), was an opportunity for the guests to ask the pontiff anything they wanted. Two years earlier, Francis had publicly apologized for past Catholic persecution of the charismatic movement.

At the time, the Italian Evangelical Alliance had cautioned against growing ecumenical openness where “insurmountable” doctrinal obstacles exist. The American delegation was similarly opposed to Schirrmacher’s engagement but had agreed to the meeting. No one wanted to ask the first question. Amid the awkwardness, Francis took the initiative.

He asked the delegation to pray for him.

Schirrmacher said what followed was a life-changing experience for the Pentecostals. They prayed for the pope. He prayed for them. By the end, he said, their theological concerns didn’t matter much anymore as they agreed with Schirrmacher that Francis was a genuine believer and had no intention to convert them to Catholicism.

Matters of theology and doctrine have always mattered to Schirrmacher, who turns 66 today. The German theologian has four doctoral degrees and authored more than 100 books, including a six-volume treatise on ethics. Committed to Christian unity, he served as general secretary of the World Evangelical Alliance from 2021 to 2024. Yet his life has been a lightning rod of controversy—particularly when he neared the halls of power.

Even seemingly straightforward truths, he finds, have prompted critical reaction.

“If I say, ‘God is love,’” said Schirrmacher, “it could start a global discussion.”

Born in 1960, Schirrmacher traces his family history to 18th-century Huguenots exiled from Austria to Prussia. His father served on the board of the missions agency World Evangelization for Christ, and Schirrmacher interacted with many visiting missionaries. He met Billy Graham as a child, and again in 1983. By then, Schirrmacher was a young pastor who had planted seven churches. Graham advised him to continue pursuing advanced theological studies.

Two years later, a covered-up scandal at his church led Schirrmacher to resign, he said. He and his wife Christine started a publishing house in Bonn. Secular titles sold, while religious books sustained his passion. Schirrmacher described these as “some of the best years of their lives,” as they focused on their business, child-rearing, and academics—he in ecumenical theology and she in Islamic studies. Her focus supported his fledgling interest in religious freedom, leading to a 1985 visit with the Orthodox ecumenical patriarch in Turkey.

But Schirrmacher did not only aim for unity abroad. In 1994, despite his cessationist upbringing, he brought Pentecostals into the Bonn Evangelical Alliance. Two years later, he also navigated opposition to integrating them into the national Evangelical Alliance of Germany. All the while, he continued his academic studies, teaching missions at the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Philadelphia and founding the Martin Bucer Seminary in Bonn in 1996.

Then the Pentecostals tested his ecumenism.

The European Assemblies of God approached Schirrmacher to send its pastors to study at his newly formed institution. At first he refused, as their beliefs didn’t match with the school’s Reformed theology. Eventually he accepted, but first Schirrmacher asked to preach an anticharismatic sermon at the largest Pentecostal church in Germany.

He spoke against pride in the spiritual gifts while also validating God’s continued use of signs and wonders to draw people to Jesus—emphasizing they also point to the importance of the Scriptures and the church. After his closing prayer, the senior pastor ran up to the stage and asked, “When can you come back?” as the audience jumped and clapped in appreciation.

Schirrmacher felt convicted.

“I felt like Peter in that story, as if God told me directly, ‘I am using the Pentecostals to evangelize the world, so you cannot bypass them,’” he said, referring to Peter’s meeting with Cornelius in Acts 10.

The Assemblies of God were not the only outliers at Martin Bucer. Schirrmacher’s connection to Turkey led…

This article was originally published at Christianity Today on June 25, 2026. Please click here to read the full text.

And click here for a Q&A interview with Thomas Schirrmacher on his involvement with the Muslim world, published at Middle East Harmony. Among other topics, it asks how he views the region differently than most American Christians.

Categories
Africa Christianity Today Published Articles

More Porridge? Senegal Protestants Debate Exchanging Holiday Foods with Muslims

Image: John Wessels / Contributor / Getty

Muslims in Senegal love to share meat. The country’s Christians share porridge.

Ending their monthlong Ramadan fast this week, the faithful in the Muslim-majority West African nation invited Christian friends to celebrate Korite (Eid al-Fitr), focus on forgiveness and reconciliation, and share a wholesome meal of chicken.

A little over two months later during Tabaski (Eid al-Adha), the mutton from sheep slaughtered in commemoration of Abraham’s sacrificing of his son will likewise be distributed to Christian neighbors. (Both feasts follow the lunar calendar and change dates each year.)

But for Christians, the sign of interfaith unity is the porridge-like ngalakh.

“Senegal is a country of terranga—‘hospitality’—and the sense of sharing is very high,” said Mignane Ndour, vice president of the Assemblies of God churches in Senegal. “Porridge has become our means of strengthening relations between Christians and Muslims.”

Sources told CT the holiday treat is highly anticipated.

In the local language, ngalakh means “to make porridge,” and the chilled dessert marks the end of Lent. Between 3 and 5 percent of Senegal’s 18 million people are Christians—the majority Catholic—and families gather to prepare the Easter fare on Good Friday.

Made from peanut cream and monkey bread (the fruit of the famed baobab tree), these core ngalakh ingredients are soaked in water for over an hour before adding the millet flour necessary to thicken the paste. It is then variously seasoned with nutmeg, orange blossom, pineapple, coconut, or raisins.

Tangy and sweet yet savory, the porridge gets its brownish color from the peanut cream.

The Christian community in Senegal traces its origin back to the 15th-century arrival of the Portuguese. And Jacques Seck, a Catholic priest in the capital of Dakar, stated that ngalakh developed during the period of French colonialism as mulatto servant women prepared their masters a meatless meal during the Lenten fast.

Ndour said that over time the tradition extended to Protestants as well.

Its believers numbering only in the thousands, the Protestant Church of Senegal was founded in 1863, becoming more visible in the 1930s. Lutherans came in the 1970s and are the second-largest Christian denomination today, alongside Methodists, Presbyterians, and newer evangelical groups.

But for some, ngalakh is controversial.

“Evangelicals do not share this tradition,” said Pierre Teixeira, editor in chief of Yeesu Le Journal, an interdenominational monthly publication. “But the rare churches that practice it broadcast a film on the gospel before distribution.”

Teixeira, a former Baptist pastor, grew up in a…

This article was originally published at Christianity Today, on April 11, 2024. Please click here to read the full text.

Categories
Arab West Report Middle East Published Articles

Safwat al-Baiady: Negotiating Religion in the Constitutional Committee

Safwat al-Baiady
Safwat al-Baiady

From my recent article at Arab West Report, continuing a series of interviews with members of Egypt’s constitutional Committee of Fifty. Safwat al-Baiady is the head of the Protestant Churches of Egypt, and lent his experience in how the committee’s religious members came to agreement on contentious articles. Here is his perspective on Article 3, giving Christians and Jews the right to refer to their religious laws in personal affairs and religious organization:

But one part of society that was not represented by the committee, Bayādī stated, were the Baha’īs. He personally argued that Article 3, guaranteeing Christians and Jews the right to govern themselves according to their own religious laws, should be phrased instead for ‘non-Muslims’. This wording won the majority in the ‘fundamentals of the state’ subcommittee on which he served, with ten votes for and only four against – the representatives of the Azhar and the Salafi Nour Party.

But when the subcommittee sent the article to the writing committee, it came back changed. Bayādī said the Azhar’s Muhammad Abd al-Salam, consultant for the Grand Imam Ahmad al-Tayyib, led the charge against this wording. Bayādī said he was very mad, and told the committee their job was in wording, not to change the meaning of the article and throw the majority outside. They responded they were also members of the full committee and had the right to their own ideas. In the end, Bayādī admitted that perhaps the change was wise, as it would not be good to upset the religious elements in society who look to the Azhar and Salafi scholars. After all, they want people to vote for the constitution.

In the committee, Bayādī said, everyone had to compromise, getting something and leaving something. This is the way to resolve differences, and he described an article the church left behind. Having already received a number of useful articles, which will be described below, Bishop Antonious of the Coptic Catholic Church proposed an article granting approval and independence to the Egyptian Council of Churches. Formed after the revolution, the council had been operating but had no official recognition. Majority approval was easy in the subcommittee, but after submission to the writing committee it was removed. Bayādī said that no one opposed early on because it did not concern them as non-Christians. But upon further deliberation committee members felt they had already received enough attention in the constitution. ‘Amr Mūsa pledged his help to get the president to give his official approval, which pleased Bayādī. But what the president gives he can take away, and if in the constitution it would be harder to revoke.

Baiady also described the battle to remove the old Article 219 interpreting sharia law, as well as the article assigning a specific age of childhood. He gives a grammar lesson in Article 64 on establishing places of worship, and describes the shenanigans over securing ‘appropriate representation’ for Christians in the coming parliament. Here is an excerpt on the fight over the term ‘civil’, and to what it should apply:

The final controversy Bayādī described came at the time of the vote itself. The preamble of the constitution declared Egypt to be a modern democratic state with civil governance. This last phrase – civil governance – was very difficult to achieve, and even Bishop Bula, to Bayādī’s surprise and anger, said he did not care for the word ‘civil’. The Salafīs in chief opposed this designation, and the Grand Mufti found the proper compromise when he supported ‘civil governance’. Everyone clapped, and the matter was over.

Or so it seemed. At the final vote Mūsá read ‘civil government’. Muna Dhū al-Fukkār, who was elected as his assistant, spoke out to correct and help him. But the vote took place and passed. According to the official transcript, of which he showed a copy, Mūsá afterwards stated that he misspoke and meant ‘governance’. But the next day, at a dinner function with the army, they received the official copy of the constitution with the words ‘civil government’. Bishop Antonious especially was very upset, saying the text was changed. Some say it doesn’t matter, Bayādī related, for government can mean the whole system of government and not just the ministers. In any case, he does not want to spoil the whole bouquet because of the insertion of one thorn, but he does believe it was meant to be changed, and not simply a mistake, due to opposition to what the mufti proposed.

For this and more, please click here to read the full report at Arab West Report.