When it comes to peace and war, life and death, non-violence and resilience - in other words, fundamental issues - the religious communities are right to speak out. The Council of the Protestant Church in Germany has presented a comprehensive and ambitious 147-page text on peace ethics in its memorandum "World in Disorder - A Focus on Just Peace". In the foreword, Council Chair Bishop Kirsten Fehrs states that the memorandum should "contribute to the formation of conscience and provide points of orientation for a life in the spirit of reconciliation." She is clear: "The memorandum offers no ready-made answers, and certainly no simple patent remedies, but invites us to ask new questions, to examine our own positions and to sharpen our conscience. For only on the basis of one's own reflected position is it possible to reach an understanding about the best way to secure lasting peace."

We take up the invitation of the Peace Memorandum to examine positions and formulate questions. In the following, they focus on twelve subject areas that require further discussion and in which the recognition of dissent could make a valuable contribution to peace. The questions are intended to stimulate and structure the debate. They open a blog series of the Peace Academy Rhineland-Palatinate and invite you to participate.

1. what exactly does the central category of the memorandum "protection from violence" mean? To whom does this protection apply and to whom does it not apply? What different forms of violence should be protected against? What is the relationship between the forms of violence to be used and the violence to be protected against? What ethical criteria are there for weighing up the negative consequences of one's own use of violence against the negative consequences of the use of violence by others?

2. is it plausible to prioritize "protection from violence" over the other dimensions of just peace (promoting freedom, reducing injustice, dealing with plurality in a way that promotes peace)? How can it be justified ethically?

3. is the reformulation of the third and fourth dimensions of just peace convincing compared to the 2007 memorandum "Living out of God's peace - ensuring just peace" ("reducing injustice" instead of "reducing need", "dealing with plurality in a way that promotes peace" instead of "recognizing cultural diversity")?

4. the categories of order, security, state defense capability and resilience take up a lot of space in the memorandum and could be understood as independent goals. How do they relate to the four dimensions of just peace?

5. what significance does the "right of peoples to self-determination" have with regard to just peace and what significance does territorial integrity have in this context? Are there criteria for the use of countervailing force when these principles are violated?

6 The memorandum consistently emphasizes the criteria of the rule of law, international law and human rights. How clear are these categories? How viable is such a concept of peace ethics in the face of powerful changes in legal systems and the erosion of global regulatory systems?

7 . what understanding is given in the peace memorandum to the specialist peace science terms "peace logic", "civil conflict transformation" and "conflict prevention"?

8. peace work, peace education and peace education remain rather pale in the memorandum's explanations, especially in comparison to military service. Considerations on climate protection, ecumenism and the religious dimension of peace appear isolated. What significance do they have and what concrete contribution do they make to steps towards just peace?

9. does the memorandum paint an adequate picture of the traditions of Christian pacifism? To what extent can the basic Christian conviction that we live "in an unredeemed world" suspend "Jesus' admonition to strict non-violence"? How is it to be understood that the use of violence can be associated with guilt "towards God's commandment" and at the same time remain morally "without guilt"? What role does guilt play in relation to the victims of one's own use of violence?

10 How is it to be understood that a certain attitude or decision is "ethically required" but "politically difficult to justify"? In such a case, does politics take precedence over ethics?

11 What role do inner-Protestant identity struggles play in the creation of the memorandum? What relevance does the text have for the broader social discourse?

12. the memorandum is clearly influenced by the Russia-Ukraine war and current security policy debates in Germany and Europe. What claim to validity can it make beyond this specific context?