Quarterly Bulletin

 

Historically and in recent times here in Zambia, we have seen how theology has been used to support policies and ideologies in politics. Fr. Pete Henriot, who writes regularly for The Post newspaper (Zambia), highlighting many socio-economic and church related issues, discusses what good theological thinking is when it comes to politics in Zambia. (This article appeared in The Post on 19 February 2008.)

The question was a good one: “What right does a person or a group in Zambia have to challenge political leaders chosen by God?” I thought the answer should have been very obvious, but it wasn’t – at least to the sincere person who questioned me during a short course I was recently offering on the church’s social teaching (CST).

Some strong statements by politicians here in Zambia have brought up  again this old issue  of how we should view leaders in our country. Are they simply chosen by the people through popular elections and therefore subject to popular criticism if they are perceived by the people as not really serving the people’s interests?  Or are they somehow chosen by God and to challenge them is to challenge God?  And that would be a very bad thing to do!

TWO SCHOOLS OF THEOLOGY

It really comes down to a political theology of where we think the authority of our political rulers come from. One school of political theology says that all authority is found in God, and that God shares that authority with the sovereign (the “vicar” of God on earth) who then rules over the people.  That school is sometimes called “the Divine Right of Kings” because it was used by the monarchs in England several centuries ago, for example, to suppress any challenges to their rule.

But another school of political theology sees God, the source of all authority, sharing that authority with all people, since all women and men are made in “the image and likeness of God” (Genesis 1:27).  Then women and men delegate that authority to those whom they choose to be rulers for the good of all.   So the authority of the ruler is 1) always dependent on the choice of the people, and 2) only legitimate if it is serving the good of the people.  That school is what we ordinarily refer to as “democracy.”

Why do I consider understanding these two schools of political theology so important?  Because today here in Zambia there are many prominent proponents of the first school. And these persons, often associated with the Ruling Party and its Government, are sharply critical of anybody – opposition party member or civic leader – or any group – civil society organization or church – who challenge the President and his chief ministers or offer alternative choices for future rulers of Zambia.

In my view, these persons are rejecting democracy when they voice such opinions as, “To challenge the President is to challenge God!” or “Don’t fuss about who will become the next President because it will be God who chooses him (or her!).”

I think that such views are based upon a theology that is dubious and dangerous.

DUBIOUS THEOLOGY

Dubious theology, that is doubtful and not truly convincing, is theology that is not really based upon a solid scriptural foundation. Those of us who value the Bible as a source of social teaching are required to do good scriptural research into relevant themes and not simply quote isolated texts without any good analysis.

For example, there are plenty of strong examples in the Old Testament to demonstrate the thematic teaching that rulers could only possess authority if  their rule was serving the people.  The prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel had some very strong words to say to the Kings of Israel who abused the people and took the wealth of the country for themselves and their families.  In the New   Testament, Jesus stayed in this prophetic tradition by challenging both the secular rulers (give Caesar only what belongs to Caesar) and the religious rulers (woe to you Scribes and Pharisees who exploit the people).  And Jesus himself exercised authority as a servant, and told his followers not to imitate the way of earthly rulers who dominate the people.

Probably the text that has been open to most misinterpretation is found in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter 13. It is a case of a text that is being cited out of context! Verses 1 to 3 are cited to emphasise that all authority comes from God and rulers should therefore be obeyed. 

But verse 4 is neglected! There Paul emphasises that authority is only for the good of the people.  In other words, if the ruler is not serving the good of the people, then she or he has no true authority!  Otherwise, for example, how could the African independence struggle against colonial rule be legitimated or rejection of the apartheid government in South Africa be supported by church leaders like Desmond Tutu and Denis Hurley? 

DANGEROUS THEOLOGY

But the political theology that blesses all rulers and curses all critics is not only dubious.  It is also dangerous!

First of all, such a theology removes constructive criticism and the offer of alternatives from the decent efforts of good Christians.  If after all, God has chosen the rulers that we have and whoever comes next will be God’s choice – remember, these are the positions recently proclaimed in very widely publicised statements by prominent Zambian political leaders and some Church leaders – then it’s better for all of us just to be quiet when the Ruling Party and its Government go their merry and irresponsible way in economic, political and social policies! 

And don’t start worrying about who the next President will be – God will choose that one for us!

But this theological position is also dangerous because it suppresses any creative civic activity that responsible Zambian citizens might undertake to improve the common good of the country.  Better just to let God act through the rulers that God has appointed.  No need for civil society activists, for human rights promoters, for critical media voices, etc.  God knows best and that means that those whom God has appointed also know best!

Those who know some history of church-state affairs will recognise how dangerous such a position really is. The Christian churches have too often endorsed the state rulers and withdrawn critical challenges from the rights of their members.  The Catholic Church in places like Spain supported dictatorial kings or military rulers. The Protestant churches in Germany could even silence voices of criticism against Hitler.  And of course we have examples today in some Islamic states where rulers have almost divine powers, never to be challenged by ordinary citizens.

GOOD THEOLOGY

I think it would be a very good step toward clarifying legitimate church’s social teaching for more dialogue to be held between churches and between churches and politicians.  The three church leadership organisations (sometimes called “mother bodies”) have for years spoken on political matters from the   position of a political theology that recognises that true authority is vested by God in the people who delegate this to rulers only to serve the common good. 

Some other church bodies – newer and more supported by and supportive of Government – are very reluctant to raise their voices in defense of the cause of social justice, concern for the poor and constitutional protection of full human rights.  They enthusiastically sing praises for the current brand of ruling politicians.

To return to the question put to me that I cited at the opening of this column, whether it is right to challenge God-chosen rulers in Zambia, I can answer by saying that this depends on my political theology. And is obvious these days, political theology has a lot of influence – for good or for bad – on politics in Zambia!

Let’s do our homework to improve both theology and politics!

 

Peter Henriot, S.J.
JCTR staff
Lusaka