This article is based on Gerhard Vowe's impulse for the conference of the Protestant Academy ""Zeitenwende" in der Friedensethik? - Kritische Seitenblicke auf das Grundlagendokument der EKD" on 30.1.26 in Landau.
How can we increase the chances of the message of just peace being heard? That it will be publicly noticed, discussed, remembered, considered? My answer: Every message has an extremely difficult time these days. Because the range of messages on offer is increasing and increasing, and so the attention of the addressees is becoming increasingly scarce. But: The chance of being heard could be greater if the church were to commit itself more to three rules of the game according to which public resonance is fought for (Vowe 2022).
How? rule on form
The first rule concerns the how of the message. The form of the "Denk-Schrift" is characterized by a Calvinist impetus. It follows a strict ban on images. The only exception is the origami dove on the cover. Nothing else conveys the message using characters other than the alphabet. My advice is to follow Luther. He saw pictures as "equally valid". I don't have decorative images in mind that are intended to loosen things up and thus distract. I am thinking of linguistic images that bring what is meant before the inner eye; of graphics that make connections clearer than words; of photographs that make suffering and hope visible as highlights. Limiting oneself to words has always been difficult. That is why the church has always communicated its messages through painting and music: "Rejoice, rejoice!" And today, in a multimedia world, this limitation drives the chance of communication to zero - and without need.
This is just one facet of a general problem with the form of the memorandum, namely its uniformity. It remains a single communication for the entire readership. This text is offered to everyone, and so it must fit everyone. The one uniform in three sizes: Summary, bolded mnemonics, full text. This uniformity has always been difficult. But nowadays, recipients expect messages that are consistently tailored to them. Of course, every message needs a clear, consistent core. But this can be specified according to the addressee. This starts with lowering access barriers and formulating a version in plain language, for example. Or by specifically tapping into the different prior knowledge, subject interests and political viewpoints of the very different target groups, i.e. picking up each person where he or she stands. Thanks to AI, these variations are now feasible with reasonable effort.
If these expectations are ignored, then the chances of being heard in a fragmented public are close to zero.
Who? Rule on the relationship between speakers and listeners
The second rule concerns the who of the message, i.e. the relationship between speakers and listeners. In the memorandum, the speakers step behind the screen of the document. The listeners do not see them, not even their faces. But that is the minimum requirement for trust and credibility. And the speakers never address the hearers directly or indirectly. Paul is different in his letter to the Romans. And Nicodemus.AI, the chatbot from the ERF Bible server, is also different[1]. It offers: "You are welcome to ask me anything." The memorandum, on the other hand, is not dialogical, but monologic. Yes, it was created in a discourse lasting several years - with discussions at synods and conferences in Protestant academies. But ultimately, speakers and listeners remain strictly separated. That is a pity. Because this ignores the church's very own possibilities, namely the network of local congregations. Every listener who was involved in the creation becomes a speaker and can convey the message better than anyone else.
Nor is it clear that the memorandum is intended to be a prelude, followed by the melody, i.e. an orchestrated series of opportunities for dialog - like our conference. Sure, it is said that the memorandum is not an encyclical and is intended to initiate a debate. But is that really the plan? In this debate, the memorandum could and should change. Is this a beta version now? Will there be a memorandum 2.0 in a year's time? I don't see any signs of that. You would need a roadmap with milestones, you would need people to organize and synchronize it.
The memorandum reduces a communication process to an authoritative impulse. The before and after do not receive the attention they deserve - not even in the almost 400-page accompanying book (Schell et al. 2025). No political party, no association, no NGO would dare to do this today. Such a monologic focus has always been difficult, but today, with the determined expectations of people, especially church members, for participation, involvement and participation, it drives the chance of being heard to zero.
What for? Rule for determining the effect
The third rule concerns the why of the message. I am concerned here with how to determine the impact of the memorandum. I fear that the EKD is limiting itself to media monitoring, perhaps even just a press review. But every speaker is advised to systematically investigate the response, i.e. to collect valid data on the response and evaluate it thoroughly. What went really well, what less so, what not at all? And why was that? And to compare this with the efforts of others. And to draw conclusions from this, i.e. to learn - for further messages. After the message is before the message. Those who learn based on evidence have a better chance of being heard.
To summarize: Even today, there is a real chance that people will hear, understand, take to heart and pass on the message of Just Peace. This chance grows if you are also visually convincing and differentiate between groups, if you seek out conversation and if you learn from the trials.
Gerhard Vowe was a university lecturer with heart and soul. From 2004 to 2023, he taught as Professor of Communication and 海角直播 Studies at Heinrich Heine University D眉sseldorf. He is interested in political communication, especially how it is changing as a result of the internet and AI. He is married and has four children and four grandchildren.
