Christian faith commits us to human dignity
Dr. Jens Henning · · approx. 6 min read to read · A theological position
Why my Christian convictions lead me to reject the AfD — while seeking dialogue with people disappointed by politics.
1. The image of God does not carry a German passport
Assigning people different degrees of dignity according to their origin, religion or supposed belonging contradicts a fundamental conviction of my faith. Genesis 1:27 speaks of human beings as God’s image. This dignity is neither conferred by the state nor earned through a particular ancestry.
For me, this is the starting point for every political judgement. Dignity belongs to a neighbour and a refugee alike, to a Christian as much as to a Muslim, a Jew or someone with no religion. It remains even when someone is inconvenient, makes mistakes or needs help.
No ready-made party programme follows from this. But a boundary does: people must not be declared a supposedly less valuable group. Those seeking political solutions must take the people affected seriously as persons with rights, stories and hopes.
2. The Christian West is more than a symbol of exclusion
In earlier contributions I have opposed the political appropriation of Christianity. Anyone invoking the “Christian West” must face the question of what the message of Jesus actually means in that claim. A cross used as an identity symbol does not itself amount to love of neighbour put into practice.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), it is precisely someone from a religiously and socially excluded group who becomes the example. The guiding question concerns our own actions: to whom do I become a neighbour? Jesus directs our attention to the injured person beside the road.
Practical care is also central in Matthew 25:31–46: feeding the hungry, welcoming strangers, visiting the sick. These texts do not provide immediate administrative rules. Yet neither can they justify making compassion fundamentally conditional on belonging to one’s own group.
3. Why my Christian convictions lead me to reject the AfD
For me, voting for the AfD is not an option. I base this on the Christian understanding of the human person and our responsibility to resist exclusion. Politics that sets people against one another and judges belonging through ethnic nationalist ideas contradicts what I understand to be the Gospel’s call.
On 22 February 2024, the German Bishops’ Conference adopted the statement “Ethnic nationalism and Christianity are incompatible”. It explicitly names the AfD and describes its development at that time as shaped by an ethnic nationalist outlook. Drawing on the Christian understanding of God and humanity, it firmly rejects such political positions. About the statement and the original text ↓
This dated statement is an important basis for my position. My argument, however, does not depend solely on Church authority. The substantive question remains decisive for me: what happens to people whom a political movement declares outsiders, threats or second-class human beings?
4. Difficult questions need responsible answers
There must be room for open debate about immigration, integration, security, affordable housing and the capacity of local authorities. People face real difficulties. Ignoring them helps neither those affected nor democratic life together.
Christian responsibility therefore calls for practical political work: reliable procedures, good schools, sufficient accommodation, protection from violence and support for those carrying responsibility locally. The rights and safety of immigrants are part of this too.
The decisive test is this: does a proposal help solve a problem while respecting human dignity? Or does it turn a whole group into a scapegoat? Religion or origin is no proof of guilt. Crimes must be prosecuted individually; blanket denigration also harms people who have nothing to do with them.
5. Why democracy involves a spiritual responsibility
Christian faith recognises no infallible political camp. Church leaders can also make mistakes and abuse power. That is precisely why I value an order in which power is limited, decisions can be scrutinised and dissent remains possible.
Democracy depends on free elections, protected minorities, independent institutions and a public sphere in which different voices may speak. For me, these conditions accord with the insight that no person or group alone possesses the truth or controls the good of everyone.
The Church must face its own history here. Christian institutions have also supported exclusion, antisemitism and authoritarian power. This creates an obligation to examine our own language and practice critically. Anyone defending human dignity must be willing to be measured by that same standard.
6. A clear position and a willingness to talk belong together
I want to remain in conversation with people who are disappointed, angry or politically uncertain. A voting decision does not tell the whole story of a person. Listening can reveal the experiences, wounds or fears behind a position.
For me, a willingness to talk also means calling people to responsibility. Racist or antisemitic statements require challenge. The dignity of those denigrated must not become the price of keeping a conversation comfortable for others.
Concrete questions can help: what supports this claim? Who is being judged as a group here? What consequences would the proposal have for a family, a child or a neighbour? And which democratic solutions could actually address the underlying concern?
7. What our parishes can contribute
A parish becomes credible when people experience protection, recognition and belonging there. This includes encounters across religious and cultural boundaries, attention to loneliness and poverty, and a dependable stand against racism and antisemitism.
For me, this also means language that respects women, queer people and different life stories. The Christian understanding of humanity cannot be defended credibly if we demand equal dignity only for selected groups.
I long for a Church that encourages people to take responsibility: on local councils, in associations, in their neighbourhoods and in democratic parties. Hope takes shape when people act together and open up possibilities for one another’s lives.
8. Hope remains greater than fear
The debate about the AfD calls for clarity. It should also prompt us to ask what kind of society we want to build. One in which difference can coexist with equal rights? In which vulnerable people find protection and conflicts are addressed without dehumanisation?
I believe in a God who makes room. In Jesus, who lifts people up. And in the life-giving Spirit, who makes community possible across boundaries. From this grows my political responsibility.
That is why I oppose the AfD and ethnic nationalism. And why I place my trust in democratic engagement, conversation and a hope that connects people.