| |
GOOD CONSTITUTION AND GOOD THEOLOGY:
YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER!
It is disturbing to read of the negative reactions of some church people to the dropping of the “Christian Nation” clause in the Preamble of the draft of our new Constitution. Disturbing, I feel, because it reflects both poor theology and poor constitutionalism. Simon Kabanda carefully explored this topic recently in his The Post column. Let me here only add six short points (I’m happy to discuss them at greater length elsewhere) that make clear to me the wisdom of the CRC’s exclusion of the “Christian Nation” in the draft Constitution.
- First, there is no solid scriptural foundation for such a declaration, so it does not make religious sense.
- Second, there is no necessity for such a declaration in order to freely promote Christianity in the country, so it does not make social sense.
- Third, there is clear evidence that such a declaration has been previously used to promote personal political agendas, so it does not make political sense.
- Fourth, there is no demonstration that such a declaration has been empirically verified (recall the words of the Zambian Catholic Bishops in 1992: “No nation is Christian by declaration but only by deeds, especially the deeds of justice and concern for the poor”), so it does not make practical sense.
- Fifth, there is strong concern that the declaration in fact could act as a discriminatory bloc against non-Christians that would promote active discrimination by some Christians or passive feelings of being discriminated by some non-Christians (thereby creating a sense of “second class citizenship” in Zambia), so it does not make legal sense.
- Sixth, there is great danger that the declaration has supporters who argue that “Some states declare themselves Islamic states so why shouldn’t Zambia follow their good example?”; but this ignores the bad example of intolerance and violence that often characterises these “religious states,” so it does not make peaceful sense.
Fortunately, the draft Constitution protects religion very clearly in Article 52 of the new Bill of Rights, offering a clear legal protection that means much more than an unclear pious declaration! It is obvious that the new Constitution should not contain any reference to a Christian nation.
Claims from Romans 13
Having said this, let me turn to an even more disturbing view being currently promoted in Zambia by some church people. This is the view, claiming Chapter 13 of Paul’s Letter to the Romans as their foundation, that true Christians should never challenge civic authority. I believe that such a view is scripturally incorrect and politically dangerous!
That true Christians should never challenge civic authority is scripturally incorrect because it deliberately mis-reads and mis-interprets scripture. In taking up the well-known passage from Romans 13, it focuses only on verses 1 to 2, that speak of authority being put in place by God and that whoever opposes authority opposes God. But it purposely ignores the key phrases of verse 4 that make very clear that the one with true authority “is God’s servant working for your good.” (Good News version) In other words, if the ruler is not working for the good of the people and not honestly and effectively promoting the common good, that ruler is not God’s servant and loses legitimacy, no longer has authority, should not be obeyed, certainly should not be respected!
Moreover, such a call to stifle Christians who challenge civic authority is politically dangerous. Why? Because it would have effectively silenced the prophetic voices of Desmond Tutu against apartheid in South Africa, Martin Luther King against segregation in the USA, John Paul II against communism in Poland, and the mother bodies of EFZ, CCZ and ZEC against “third-termism” in Zambia. It is important to make this point strongly in the context of current discussions in Zambia because this call has been prominently made in government newspapers in the past few weeks.
Support the Government
In the face of wide-ranging disputes over corruption and legal mishandlings (e.g., the Bulaya case) and over the process to adopt a new Constitution (e.g., whether to hold a Constituent Assembly despite government’s opposition to the proposal), Zambians are being told simply to go along with the government of the day. A front page article a few weeks ago in The Times of Zambia reported that a key official in “a newly formed church motherbody,” the International Ministers Fellowship and Affiliated Churches (IMFAC), had criticised what he considers the current disrespect being shown government. He argued that Romans 13 commands us “as a country to respect the Government of the day regardless of the reasons we might hold and faults committed.” And a full-page article last week in The Daily Mail, entitled “The Theology of Politics,” sharply criticised the leaders of the three motherbodies who were raising questions about the current government’s morals, policies and intentions. Again, Romans 13 was cited to silence the critics.
History has shown the folly of such a position – theological and political -- that demands unwavering support for the government in power. Oppressive governments have frequently used Romans 13 to silence opposition. Even when violence and injustice mark a government’s rule, the rulers (and their church supporters!) have commanded that Christians must obey since their authority comes from God. (I read one commentator who remarked that Romans 13 was Adolph Hitler’s favourite Bible passage!)
Lessons from History
Zambia gained independence from British colonialism by outrightly rejecting the established authority of the imperial political rule. South Africans threw off the shackles of dehumanising apartheid domination by struggling against a government that claimed God’s blessings.
Many years ago, I taught constitutional law history in an African-American college in Virginia, a former slave state in the USA. I recall reading with shame and sadness some sermons of Christian preachers who advised the slaves to obey their masters, since this was God’s design as evidenced in Romans 13.
And we know the sad history of some missionaries who accompanied the colonialists to Africa and urged the newly baptised Christians to go along with the established powers. This, even in the face of racial injustice, political violence and economic plunder, Thank God for the churches’ repentance of such a stance and their rejection of any similar absurdities!
It is wise to remember that many martyrs whom our churches honour today – Protestant, Catholic and Evangelical – were condemned in their time as being subversive enemies of the established social order. It is an insult to these martyrs if now some religious leaders support a distorted moral teaching that the government of the day should be obeyed absolutely because they currently are in authority and represent the authority of God.
What is the role of personal conscience in such a moral framework? What is the task of Christian wisdom that should direct social and political discernment? Where is the example of truly prophetic leadership that should guide religious responses?
It is helpful at this point to recall the teaching of an important ecumenical pastoral letter issued in 1987 by the EFZ, CCZ and ZEC, entitled, “Christian Liberation, Justice and Development.” Commenting on government’s authority, the letter wisely stated: ” While the State has the authority to make final decisions, the people themselves have both the right and the duty to share in that authority“ (#153). Let those who now are crying for a “Christian nation” put into practice what those Christian leaders stated so clearly.
For it is bad theology that will lead to a bad Constitution if today that right would be denied and that duty ignored.
Published in THE POST, Lusaka, 26 July 2005.
Peter Henriot is director of the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) in Lusaka.
|
