“The Church and Politics” – But doesn’t the Bible teach us that the church should stay out of politics and simply be a faithful servant of the state?  After all, aren’t we instructed that all authority comes from God and therefore we should be obedient to the rulers who have this God-given authority?

      The good Christian citizen is the humble and obedient citizen.  (She or he certainly wouldn’t belong to something like the Oasis Forum in Zambia that opposed the elected President’s efforts for a Third Term or is currently challenging the Government over constitutional review issues!)

      We often hear such sentiments expressed in a variety of political debates these days. You will recognise the source for the arguments aimed to prevent the churches from playing a “political” role in improving the country’s well being: St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Chapter 13, especially Verses 1 and 2. 

      But what does this teaching of Paul really mean and how relevant is it to the political debates of today here in Africa?

GOVERNMENT USE OF ROMANS 13

      Why raise now these questions about the meaning and implications of the famous text of Romans 13?  I believe that two recent incidents reveal that there is a particular understanding of this text that is still prevalent in some circles in Zambia and that this understanding has very serious consequences for efforts of the Church to provide the spiritual leadership that is its task today. 

      A biblical fundamentalism threatens to silence any  reasonable efforts of the churches to influence for the good the policies and practices of the state government.

      The first incident occurred a few months ago  during one of the early nationally televised debates on ZNBC-TV that focused on the current constitutional review.  A few members of the Government and Ruling Party debated with some representatives of civil society and the Oasis Forum.

      At one point, in strongly objecting to the challenge posed by the church bodies to the government’s position regarding constitutional review under the Inquiries Act, the Minister of Legal Affairs stated that the churches should remember that it is their biblical duty to support the legally constituted government of the day.  Consequently, the churches should not be part of the group that refuses to follow the government’s lead in the process of constitutional review.

      The second incident occurred a few weeks later, following the issuance by the churches of a statement on the social and political crisis in the country.  This statement expressed sentiments of over a hundred church leaders gathered for a day of prayer and reflection at the Makeni centre of CCZ, outside Lusaka.

      The State President, speaking in Chipata a few days later, censured this action of the church leaders.  He said that he did not understand how the churches could make such critical statements when the bible tells us so clearly that it is the churches’ duty to obey the government and not to cause dissension.

      I believe that such sentiments as expressed by these high government officials should not be allowed to pass unchallenged.  I base my argument on two points:

·        first, such an interpretation of the text of Romans 13 is scripturally incorrect

·        second, strict following of such an interpretation is politically dangerous

OPINIONS ABOUT PAUL’S TEACHING 

      In preparing this paper, I did a search on the Internet for some comments on Romans 13.  (The “Google” search engine is a wonderful academic help!)  The comments flowing across my computer screen were really quite interesting and at times very entertaining.  Understandably, they fall into two categories: absolute submission and responsible dissent.

      One writer said quite clearly: “Though the ruler is sometimes wrong, to be sure, he nevertheless  is in an office that is ordained of God; and so, when we resist authority, we resist the Lord.”

      Another cites a well-known commentary by Barclay: “At first reading this is an extremely surprising passage, for it seems to counsel absolute obedience on the part of the Christian to the civil power.  But, in point of fact, this is a commandment which runs through the whole New Testament.”  According to Barclay, Romans 13 commands “absolute obedience on the part of the Christian to the civil power.”

      On the other hand, a critical comment on an interpretation of absolute obedience to civil power argues that such a position is not really biblical.  A clear reading of both Old and New Testaments shows plenty of examples of opposition to authorities.  “Daniel disobeyed Darius and went to the lions den.  The three Hebrew children broke the law for not bowing.  The parents hid baby Moses from Pharaoh.  Rahab lied to protect the Hebrew spies.  The Apostles went to prison for preaching Christ in the authority of Heaven.  Paul and his followers in Acts 17 did contrary to all the decrees of Caesar in order to make Jesus  the King.  Even Jesus lived in direct opposition of the political religious leaders of his day and went to the cross for us.”  (Greg A. Dixon, WorldNetDaily.com)

      And a comment highly critical of the “established” churches that cooperate with the state says in very blunt terms:  “The harlot churches like to promote Romans 13 as meaning, ‘Obey Caesar,’ or ‘Obey the law of the land.’  How else can they interpret it?  They have yoked themselves with Caesar through State incorporation.  Their very life comes from the State.  If they do not obey Caesar, Caesar will withdraw their corporate charter and they will die.  State incorporated churches have only one choice if they are to survive: promote obedience to the State.”  

SCRIPTURALLY INCORRECT

      It is necessary to do some good and simple biblical exegesis to understand the meaning of Romans 13, especially the first two verses that are so frequently cited in these political debates.  By “biblical exegesis” I mean the effort to probe the deeper meaning of the texts, to go beyond the mere words on a page, to get the sense and the significance through historical investigation and language analysis

      Good biblical exegesis requires examination of a text in terms of its context and its content.

CONTEXT EXEGESIS

      First, what is the context of Romans 13?  We recall that Paul was writing to the church in Rome, to Christians who were newly embracing a faith that freed them from the laws of Jewish traditions and that liberated them from oppressive submission to religious authorities who did not respect human rights and dignity.  Some of these early Christians appear to have gone to an extreme of declaring themselves free from any laws or authority.  They were called “anti-nomists” – rejecters of laws. 

      These Christians would seem to say, “We are subject only to Christ, not to any human law.”  They even used religion to evade their family tasks and social duties (remember that 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-12 castigates those who do not work but still want to eat!).  There may even have been some of the anti-Roman temper of the Zealot party passed into a section of the Christian community in Rome

      In such a context, Paul feels bound to challenge these people who would reject any lawful authority on earth.  In more contemporary times, there are some groups that claim to be Christian but who will have nothing to do with civil powers, even those duly and democratically elected.

      I remember as a young person growing up in North America that there was a religious sect in Canada (“Dukabhors”) who had immigrated from Russia and who rejected all government laws – even to the extent of demonstrating naked in objecting to police efforts to control their activities. (Demonstrating naked was a particularly bold act in the freezing winters of Canada!)  Those of you who know more about the revolt of Alice Lenshina and her followers could tell us if their activities were a similar “anti-nomist” movement here in Zambia.

      The point of this bit of contextual exegesis is simple: Paul is writing to address a specific problem that has no parallel in the criticism offered to the Zambian government today, for example, in challenging its designs for constitutional review.  It is simply bad biblical scholarship to appeal to the text of Romans 13 to condemn any so-called political activity on the part of the churches here in Zambia today.

CONTENT EXEGESIS

      Second, what is the content of Romans 13?  The first two verses are quite clear, whatever the English translation:

Good News: Everyone must obey the state authorities, because no authority exists without God’s permission and the existing authorities have been put there by God.  Whoever opposed the existing authority opposes what God has ordered; and everyone who does so will bring judgement on himself.

African Bible: Let every person be subject to superior authority.  For there is no authority except from God, and the existing ones have been established by God.  Thus, the one who resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist it will bring condemnation on themselves.

King James:  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

New Jerusalem:  Everyone is to obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God.  So everyone who disobeys an authority is rebelling against God’s ordinance and rebels must expect to receive the condemnation they deserve.

      This is clear teaching, echoing Proverbs 8: 15:  “By me kings reign, and lawgivers establish justice; by me princes govern, and nobles; all the rulers of earth.”

      Traditional political theology draws heavily upon the content of this   line   of   scriptural  teaching.

 God is all-powerful, and shares power with earthly authorities.  One line of thinking puts that power directly in the hands of the ruler to exercise over the people (e.g., the theory of the Divine Right of Kings); another line puts it directly in the hands of the people made in God’s image who then pass it on indirectly by delegating it to rulers (e.g., the theory of democracy).

      But to be faithful to the content of this teaching we must not stop at the first two verses, but read also the key phrase in the fourth verse:

Good News:  He is God’s servant working for your own good.

African Bible:  They are stewards of God for your good.

King James:  For he is the minister of God to thee for good.

New Jerusalem:  It is there to serve God for you and for your good.

      In other words, it is clear from the full text that the authority of the ruler comes from God for only one purpose: to promote the good of all, to advance the common good.  Indeed, this is so true that unless the ruler is promoting the good of all citizens, that ruler loses legitimacy, no longer has authority, should not be obeyed.

REVOLUTIONARY TEACHING?

      This teaching is, as many have pointed out over the years, the revolutionary content of Romans 13 – often ignored in favour of the submissive content, but of equal importance and equivalent influence.  It is unfortunate that many quote the content of only the first two verses and ignore the content of the subsequent verses!

      We can thus see that a content analysis of Romans 13 can in no way support the assertion that rulers are always to be obeyed and never to be criticised.  The full content of the first four verses offer an ideal description of government and rule as it should be – supporting good and suppressing evil.  Only then does it have the legitimacy necessary to be said to be acting with God’s authority.

      I offer that we can therefore conclude that a good biblical exegesis -- even as brief as this -- shows that both the context and the content of Romans 13 can not be used to support a claim today that here in Zambia the churches should be universally supporting the elected government of the day and all its policies – even when some of these policies are hurting us!

POLITICALLY DANGEROUS

      My second argument should be fairly obvious. This text of Paul has been frequently used by oppressive governments to silence opposition.  Even when violence and injustice mark a government’s rule, the rulers will urge that Christians must obey since their authority comes from God.  I read one commentator who remarked that Romans 13 was Hitler’s favourite Bible passage!

      But the history of human development has often been marked by clear opposition to government rule.  Zambia gained independence from British colonialism by rejecting the established authority of the imperial political rule.  South Africans threw off the shackles of dehumanising apartheid rule by struggling against a government that claimed God’s blessings.

      Martin Luther King, Jr., brought an end to apartheid in the United States through a strategy of civil disobedience to the unjust legal structures of segregation.  Those who were opposed  to these freedom movements often cited Romans 13 to justify their rule and to criticise their opponents.

      Many years ago, I taught constitutional law history in an African-American college in Virginia, a former slave state in the United States of America.  I recall reading some sermons of Christian preachers who advised the slaves to obey faithfully 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 in Africa and urged the newly baptised Christians to go along with the established powers – even in the face of racial injustice and economic plunder.

      But is it not also true that many, many martyrs whom our churches honour  today  were condemned in their time as being subversive and enemies of the established social order?  It would truly be politically dangerous to support a moral teaching that the government of the day and the ruling party should be obeyed absolutely because they currently are in authority and therefore 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 guide social discernment?  Where is the example of truly prophetic leadership that should guide religious responses?

POLITICS OF THE COMMON GOOD

      Let me conclude by citing a beautiful, indeed a powerful, lesson from an important text in the Catholic social teaching, the document of the Second Vatican Council, The Church in the Modern World. This is the document that reminds us that “The joys and hopes, the sorrows and anxieties of the women and men of this age, especially the poor and those in any way oppressed, these are the joys and hopes, the sorrows and anxieties of the followers of Jesus Christ.” (#1)

      The text I refer to is from Chapter IV, “The Life of the Political Community.”  The teaching in this chapter emphasises the dignity and worth of the role of politics and stresses the right and duty of people to participate in the political order.  Accordingly,

Christians should recognise that various legitimate though conflicting views can be held concerning the regulation of temporal affairs.  They should respect their fellow citizens when they promote such views honourably even by group action.  Political parties should foster whatever they judge necessary for the common good.  But they should never prefer their own advantage over this same common good. (#75)

      My prayer is that at this important moment in the history of our country, Christians will play a significant role in effecting in Zambia a politics of the common good.  I sincerely think that a correct interpretation of Romans 13 will help us in this noble task!   What do you think?

Pete Henriot, S.J.
JCTR Staff
Lusaka