After Prime Minister Orbán's speech, nearly all Christian churches and denominations have condemned capital punishment. However, the Church of Faith declared referring to Noah that God gave an order to punish wilful murder with death. Who is right from a theological point of view?

I have not read their statement but theoretically I can say that for Christians, the Old Testament is to be interpreted through Christ – as many parts written in there are definitely exceeded by the New Testament. Jesus said for example: it was said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say, love your neighbour. He overwrites the original law. It is never right to employ those texts in view of daily political interests. That is why I was glad when [Christian Democrat state secretary] Bence Rétvári raised his word against capital punishment. But when the mayor of Kaposvár [the location of a recent brutal murder] spoke for capital punishment with the logo of the Christian Democratic Party behind him, I found it strange to put it lightly. I understand the outrage and vehemence of the local people but this would be an unfortunate solution.

Why so? The Christian Democratic Party is clearly dominated by Catholics and Catholic teaching does not outrule capital punishment. Do the Lutherans have some central orientation in this question?

We do not have a central office of teaching. Our international communion is the Lutheran World Federation with independent member churches. According to the extent to which I am familiar with their standpoints, the majority is against, even the Lutherans in the United States. In church statements, it is always an important argument that everyone should be granted the opportunity for conversion. Capital punishment clearly shortens, rules out this possibility. Examples as the murder in Mór demonstrate this quite well [After the bank robbery in Mór with eight casulties the suspect got a life sentence. Five years later it was proved that he was not guilty of the murders.] The convicts would be dead by now and we could only lament that it wasn't them after all. The standpoint of the Lutheran church is very clear. Out of the seven voting members of our church presidency six supported the declaration against capital punishment. There was only one exception.

Was it deputy state secretary Gergely Prőhle?

No. He supported the declaration and he also wrote an editorial to the Lutheran weekly on the subject. The person who did not vote for the declaration does not support executions as such but in her viewpoint Hungarian laws do not allow for capital punishment so she feels there is no need for the church to get involved in everyday politics through such statements.

Why did you six feel it necessary?

On the one hand, we could rely on criminal statistics: since the first constitutional court abolished capital punishment, the number of crimes against life has considerably decreased. We said it is not acceptable when "politics or the media appeal to instincts incompatible with the teaching of Jesus about love and poison the souls with the false phantom of revenge and deterrence". In my opinion, it is actually an eye-wash: The government will obviously not introduce such a law, they are just trying to create a politically advantageous atmosphere. The subtext is "if we wouldn't have damned Brussels about our ears, we would definitely introduce this for the good of the country". I cannot accept such an approach neither from a theological, nor from the political point of view. Those are the times when we must speak.

And what about the national consultation on immigration? What do you think?

Not much good. The aim and the reason are quite similar to the case of capital punishment. They start with terrorism right away! The first three questions of the consultation are about that. They even included the name of the Isis. It is a clue everyone will recognise and it evokes a fear in the average reader. They go astray right at the beginning and with that, they set the tone for this deliberately manipulative questionnaire. And it is the same government which kept referring to Christian values, included them in the basic law and questioned Brussels about those...

Which was quite right, wasn't it?

Clearly so. It is of course nonsense when people demonstrate against the right to put up a Christmas tree or a cross in a public place. Now it is the same government which puts those Christian values in brackets for the sake of their plain interests.

When someone says there should be no immigration, is that putting Christian values in brackets?

If it is handled as a pure law enforcement question or mingled with terrorism, it is the case. They didn't even ask how the churches could contribute. Because even very small churches may act. The tiny Evangelical Lutheran Church in Italy with its 7–8,000 members supports families of refugees. The Protestant Church in the Netherlands launched a project called bed, bath and bread. That is what they provide refugees with. German Lutherans have accommodated refugees from Syria and Afghanistan. The religion of those people is irrelevant. They are our fellow creatures and that is what counts. I was deeply moved by a message from Pope Francis last year saying: "The Church [...] spreads throughout the world a culture of acceptance and solidarity, in which no one is seen as useless, out of place or disposable". About Jesus, he says: "he identified himself with the stranger, with the one who suffers, with all the innocent victims of violence and exploitation". Compared to this standard, Pope Francis looks critically at Christians who "keep the Lord’s wounds at arm’s length".

Does this also stand if peoples' religion is extremely important for those Muslim fellow creatures? If they throw out their Christian fellows from the boat already before touching shore?

Those situations are clearly outraging so the possibility to screen should be there in order to have a greater chance to rule out potential terrorists and villains. But it is only possible if we get acquainted with the refugees. The questions of the consultation also include some illogical steps. The government either wants to make the refugees work or expel them right away to where they came from. Both cannot be done at once. But neither of those solutions gives us a chance to get acquainted with the person.

So you support the idea that they should work?

I have no problem with that. The term labour camp is of course inappropriate – I hope it is only used by the foreign press. Inactivity and unemployment are also psychologically depriving: Such a situation also increases the temptation for criminal activity. It is good if the community (even a church) is able to give reasonable tasks. Those who refuse this and are simply waiting for money and the citizenship, are naturally not to be supported in their attitude. But if we don't even give the chance for them to prove the opposite, it is just as bad. Let's continue with the consultative questions. While the first three only aim at spreading fear, the fifth already hints that Hungarian workplaces may be taken by immigrants well-connected to terrorism. It is the same idea which we quite rightly opposed

in the times of [that time minister of foreign affairs] László Kovács. It is another variation of spreading fear of 23 million Rumanians [possibly entering the Hungarian labour market after a bilateral agreement in 2002]. Is it sensible to think that there comes a black man in pants, without documents and he will take the job from a Hungarian manager? It doesn't make sense.

We could add one more question for the sake of Fidesz MP László Pósán [who in his press conference on refugees asked the following question]: "Would anyone be happy if six black Africans would surround their child on the bus and act in a threatening way?"

I have a counterexample. A woman from the Middle East wearing a chador was waiting for the underground. Hungarian people surrounded her and started to blame her for killing Christians in her home country.

However, multiculturalism is out, isn't it?

Yes, overstrained multiculturalism and the false interpretation of political correctness are out as Angela Merkel has also remarked some years ago. Yet in Hungary, this is not a realistic threat. We are a country for transit. We don't have to worry that our kindergartens will be full of children from Asia or Africa. In light of that, the 12th question of the consultation is pure demagogy.

The question goes: "Do you agree with the Hungarian government that instead of supporting immigrants, there is a need to support Hungarian families and their children to be born?"

To put the few thousand people staying in our country in a balance with millions of Hungarians – what does it sound like? Just as if helping refugees would exclude the support for Hungarian families.

There is still one justified fear. If Germans and Austrians close their borders, hundreds of thousands may stick here. That would be a problem though.

It may be a risk but is not one yet. If it would be the case, then the time would have come for what question 10 says about the refugees generating the costs of their own upkeep. So I am ready to accept if they are given a job, even some communal work. But there is no need for spreading fear.

In Australia, they have simply sealed their borders. It is an existing solution.

Zero tolerance does not solve a thing. Australians protect themselves but they do not count with the human angle. Among refugees, there are not only fraudulent people but also people running for their life. There are Africans who have no access to food on a continent turning into a desert. There are women who have to face torture or circumcision in their homes. And there are Christians who are slaughtered in great numbers at home. To return them at once to where they have come from? I think it is unacceptable for a Christian. We do have our global responsibility.

If the situation would turn worse and we would have to house hundreds of thousands of people, what could the Lutheran church offer?

We have 300 congregations and dozens of social institutions in the country. Those are inclusive communities. Of course such a task has to handled in a professional way, not by a bunch of idealists but we are also active in that field: our church is very much present in the Hungarian Interchurch Aid. In spite of that, no-one has approached us as a church about the refugee issue. The same thing happened in the case of the church law. Afterwards they were surprised when we said such a law was not our intention.

Aren't you glad that many concurring small churches were deprived of their church status?

No.

Wouldn't you even ban the Church of Faith?

On the contrary. I have had numerous conflicts with them and I observe many improper phenomena theologically but it wouldn't come to my mind to question their right to exist. The theology of success which says if you are rich, it is a sign of God's blessing is a theological extremity but just as in politics, in church life there is also a need for the extremes. It is so all around Europe and approximately in the same proportions as the Church of Faith has in Hungary. They have stopped growing. Their existence was not threatened by the new law but I also find it strange that the Methodist community led by Gábor Iványi was deprived of its church status. I guess the political difference between him and the Fidesz party is behind all that. It is not right, even though Iványi referring to him having baptised the children of PM Orbán was also not very appropriate: It is very much against how I understand a pastor's role.

We haven't heard the voice of the church that much though.

The Lutheran church had its own opinion about the criminalisation of the homeless and about the church law. But I do not say we were especially courageous or that we were shouting at the top of our lungs. At some points, we have opposed the steam-roller though. The role of the church is critical by nature. It follows from its prophetic role. When I was asked about the relation between church and politics during the Bajnai government [2009–2010], I said I am looking forward to being the critic of a Conservative government. By that, I made it clear that I am looking forward to a government change but I also signified that I reserve the right for criticism.

Do you regret having looked forward to a Fidesz government five years ago?

I feel a great deal of incomprehension. I was expecting to see a more elegant and unhurried governance – especially with the two-third majority. I am not naive though and I know that a government has to explore its mandate but I was surprised by the total lack of substantial consultation. Of course it is still a habit among church people and church members that only the Fidesz may be their ally. It is logical in a way as most parties have maintained a greater distance from the church. However, believers mustn't stick to a status ten years ago and take in everything what a given party feeds them. All questions should be tackled under the notion of critical solidarity. We are not insensitive but reflective people.

Do the pastors speak about those questions in church?

Yes, they do. The word of God is in the centre of our services but it is not only elevated spiritual things we speak about. A sermon or a prayer should definitely touch upon current issues. That is what I teach at our theological university.

Even if supporters of the Hungarian Socialist Party would eagerly take notes during political campaigns?

Let them take notes if they prefer to. A prayer is only authentic if I do not pray in general for human mankind but for those refugees who arrive now or for those who have been touched by the earthquake in Nepal. Most of us are ready to receive Hungarians from Subcarpathia escaping from enlistment but we also have to receive those who are not Hungarians, or not Christians. You need a more sublime attitude for that but the Bible helps a lot in this regard. In the gospel by Luke, we read about the good Samaritan. Who is the one who helps him? A stranger. Not an insider. As Jesus says in Matthew 25, "I was a stranger and you invited me in". So if one says that the doors of Hungary must be sealed, he is crossing out Matthew 25 with a red pen. One must take sides. If the government is taking a standpoint clearly against the Bible, they mustn't quote it all the time.

Is it than possible to draw direct conclusions from the Bible?

It is not possible to find direct solutions for a current issue because in that case Noah would also have to be right. But there are orders which cannot be misunderstood. The Lutheran church for instance has a yearly guideline. It includes a watchword for each day but also one for the whole year. In 2015, it is: "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God". This is our command for the year which we face each day So let me underline that what is called national consultation on immigration, is against this.