Last Wednesday, the City of Karlsruhe’s Youth Welfare Committee was set to make a highly anticipated decision:
The committee was to discuss and vote on the application submitted by the ICF Karlsruhe (International Christian Fellowship) for official recognition as an independent youth welfare provider. Even in the run-up to the meeting, the proceedings had caused quite a stir, accompanied by media coverage, debates, and demonstrations in front of City Hall.
The Karlsruhe city administration had reviewed the ICF’s application and recommended that the committee approve it, since the formal requirements, nonprofit status, and actual work with children and youth had been verified. Nevertheless, a controversial debate lasting about two hours ensued in the Bürgersaal, focusing less on the quality of the educational work and more on theological issues, allegations of proselytizing, and the organization’s treatment of queer youth. In the end, the committee voted by a majority of 17 against recognition—only six members, including myself on behalf of FÜR Karlsruhe, voted in favor of the administration’s proposal.
We at FÜR Karlsruhe are deeply disappointed by this decision, which marks a troubling development in our culture of municipal debate. While the city’s administrative department reached a clear, legally sound conclusion, political reservations, sweeping fears, and ideological divides ultimately prevailed within the committee. Anyone who advocates for a cosmopolitan and diverse Karlsruhe must credibly uphold this principle, especially when it comes to stakeholders with an independent, values-based profile.
The German constitutional state deliberately does not require a screening of ideological views when recognizing organizations: If an organization is a nonprofit, carries out ongoing youth work, submits a functioning safety plan, and operates in accordance with the Basic Law, it is legally entitled to be recognized as a sponsoring organization. The ICF Karlsruhe has met all of these requirements. The safety plan for the prevention of violence was also duly submitted and reviewed by the municipal authorities without objection. Child and youth welfare law does not require a separate, additional ideological plan. Nor should there be any legal collective liability for theological statements made by other ICF locations in Zurich or Munich; the sole determining factor is the conduct of the independent association here on the ground.
During the discussion, the impression also arose that programs for children serve solely as a means of inevitable proselytizing. This misrepresents the reality on the ground: Through musicals, camps, and vacation programs, the ICF reaches between 250 and 330 young people each week, thereby establishing a distinct and valuable focus in our city. A Christian profile in no way precludes sponsorship by church organizations; otherwise, one would have to withdraw trust from all church-based youth ministry. Programs such as prayer counseling (SOZO), which were discussed in the media, are aimed exclusively at responsible adults on a voluntary basis, are structurally completely separate from youth ministry, and cannot legally constitute grounds for denial. If families and young people voluntarily and willingly take advantage of these services, policymakers should respect this commitment rather than viewing it with suspicion.
In my remarks to the Youth Welfare Committee, I pointed out that the fundamental values of our Constitution—human dignity, mutual tolerance, and love for one’s neighbor—are rooted in Christian principles. A liberal state depends on conditions that it cannot guarantee on its own; that is why vibrant religious communities are indispensable. Article 4 of the Basic Law protects freedom of religion and, with it, the right to impart a biblical view of the world and the family, as long as the best interests of the child are safeguarded.
Despite this misguided decision, I support the Free Church’s conciliatory stance: We want to bring people together in Karlsruhe, not create new divisions. It is okay to be disappointed without becoming bitter. I encourage the ICF Karlsruhe to continue engaging in constructive dialogue, to clarify the association’s bylaws regarding the independent primary purpose of youth welfare, and to further develop the formal violence prevention policy in detail. Once these steps have been taken, a new application should be submitted to make the legal and professional basis indisputable. It would be the best sign of tolerance if the city administration, the city council, and the Free Church ultimately came together as reliable partners. FÜR Karlsruhe will continue to advocate for decisions at City Hall to be based on the law, facts, and fairness—not on ideological reservations.
