Publications

SHOULD THE CHURCH SPEAK OUT?

The Government of Zambia is having a lot of difficulties with churches these days.  At least that seems to be the case when you read the papers over the past few weeks.  Most recently, there is the lively controversy surrounding the Universal Church.  Accusations of “satanism,” riots, break-up of press conferences, expulsion of pastors: it would make a great Hollywood movie (or at least a Nigerian video!).  Then the general order not to register any more churches until regulations are clarified and strengthened.  No more “mushrooming” of churches (indeed, a curious term applied to a religious phenomenon!).  And all of this in the midst of heated debates over whether or not to include the declaration of Zambia as a “Christian Nation” in the new (hopefully new…!) Constitution we look forward to….

But surely the most difficult challenge the Ruling Party and its Government appears to be facing is the challenge offered by the mainline churches to the Government’s refusal to allow steps to be taken to guarantee a people-oriented Constitution in the near future.  I say this because of the level of attack upon the churches and their leaders that has been mounted by top Government officials and Party leaders.

Accurate and non-biased historical review indicates clearly that the three major church bodies were central in calling for a new Republican Constitution after the “Third Term” fight and the disputed elections of 2001.  As leaders in the Oasis Forum, the churches early on demanded a people-constructed and people-oriented new Constitution.  When the President decided to repeat the narrower version of designing a Constitution through appointment of a Commission of Inquiry (a method that had not produced democratic results in its previous applications to earlier constitutional designs), the churches raised their voices.  Those voices have continued to be raised as the constitutional struggle has continued.

Church Should Be Silent

The raised voices of the churches in Zambia, offering clear critiques and cogent alternatives, have recently been denounced not so much for their content but for their very existence.  The church has been told to be silent!  According to many prominent political leaders, three criticisms are key: (1) the church has no expertise to speak out; (2) the church is supporting the opposition political parties when it speaks out; and (3) the church, if it does speak out, should always support the government in power (anointed by God?). 

To be honest, these criticisms would appear to be very specious, questionable arguments.   The church possesses plenty of expertise among its leaders, its various offices, its wide membership.  And church positions are taken on the basis of the church’s social teaching (on human rights and duties, on democracy, on community and solidarity, on responsibilities of good governance, etc.), not because they favour some political party’s stand.  Moreover, to say that the church should always support the government in power would have silenced Archbishop Tutu of South Africa, Archbishop Romero of El Salvador, and Rev. Martin Luther King of USA, to mention only a few recent strong church witnesses to justice!

Some Important History

But let’s just look at the historical experience of the past fifteen years here in Zambia.  We can ask a simple question: why do politicians judge some church declarations as good and some as bad?  Recall, for instance, the following bits of history:

1. 1991:  the three church bodies arranged for the Holy Cross Cathedral meeting between President Kaunda and Candidate Chiluba.  The agreements worked out at the Cathedral – accepted by the Ruling Party and its Government as well as by the newly-formed opposition -- enabled the country to move forward to multi-party elections.  Constitutional peace was assured.  That the church had spoken out was judged by most everyone as good.

2. 1996:  the Catholic bishops called for postponement of enactment of the constitutional amendments until after the General Elections, because of the controversies aroused by President Chiluba’s rejection of more than 80% of the recommendations made by the highly respected Mwanakatwe Constitutional Review Commission.  As a consequence, the church was strongly attacked!  Constitutional wisdom was abandoned.  That the church had spoken out was judged by the Ruling Party and its Government as bad.

3. 2001: the initial clear call of the three church bodies for rejection of moves by President Chiluba and MMD officials and cadres to contest for a third term was then joined by the Law Association of Zambia, non-governmental organisations and many others.  This gave rise to the now-famous (or “infamous,” depending on your political position!) Oasis Forum.  Constitutional protection was guaranteed.  That the church had spoken out was judged by most everyone (except the Ruling Party and its Government) as good.

4. 2005: the vigourous defense by the three church bodies of a Constituent Assembly as the best approach for a people-oriented Constitution has brought down upon them a barrage of vicious attacks, ridicule and threats.  Strangely, the church’s echoing of the President’s previous call for a Constituent Assembly now is seen as foolish and partisan-motivated.  Constitutional development is rejected.  That the church has spoken out is judged by the Ruling Party and its Government as bad.

Criteria for Speaking Out

So what seems to be the criteria for judging when the church should speak out on issues of such grave national concern as constitutional formation?  Drawing conclusions from the brief historical sketch I have offered above, it seems that those in power feel that the church should only speak out when such a voice supports the positions taken by those in power.  To challenge the Ruling Party and its Government is bad; to support them is good! 

But surely this cannot be the way to proceed wisely and peacefully at such an important moment of constitutional development.  Recent calls by many key politicians for church leaders to resign their religious callings and join partisan politics are not helpful in the on-going growth of a mature and strong democracy in Zambia.  If church positions are found by some to be disagreeable, let them be debated openly, their faults intelligently examined, and charitable recommendations made for improvement. 

Forty years ago, a key Roman Catholic Church social teaching document called, “The Church in the Modern World,” insisted that the church “has the right to pass moral judgements, even on matters touching the political order, whenever basic personal rights…make such judgments necessary.”  That teaching was explicitly cited by our Zambian Catholic Bishops in their courageous 1990 landmark social teaching, “Economics, Politics and Justice,” that challenged the Ruling Party and its Government immediately after the “IMF Riots” and the attempted military coup.  

Given the immense importance for both “basic personal rights” and fundamental social peace and national development of the current constitutional debate, the church certainly has the right and duty to speak out in the intelligent, non-partisan fashion is has been doing in recent weeks and months. 

Let those who would disagree offer alternative historical analysis and theological reflection.