Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Africa grapples with Romans 13
UPI ^ | July 3, 2002 | Uwe Siemon-Netto

Posted on 07/03/2002 7:53:56 PM PDT by gcruse

Faith: Africa grapples with Romans 13

By Uwe Siemon-Netto
UPI Religion Correspondent

From the

Life & Mind

Desk

Published 7/3/2002 6:25 PM

WASHINGTON, July 3 (UPI) -- As evangelical Christianity is becoming the dominant force in sub-Saharan Africa, the key New Testament passage dealing with the relationship between church and state has taken on paramount importance.

At last weekend's international conference titled, "The Bible and the Ballot Box: Evangelical Faith and Third-World Democracy," no other Biblical text came up more frequently than Romans 13:1-7, which reads in part:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God ... Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed."

It's a troubling text because, depending on how you interpret these words, they might lead to the assumption that a Christian must not resist injustice.

At the conference in Potomac, Md., one presenter after another told the audience from five continents that in Africa this admonition by the apostle Paul had caused missionaries and old-style Evangelicals to take a quietist stance.

But this is changing, these scholars argued. They said that an African holism, which in the words of Oxford professor Terence O. Ranger "inseparably unites the 'secular' and the 'religious,'" always prevails in the long run.

"The question is... not whether Evangelical Christianity (in Africa) has been, is, and will be intensely 'political,' but how."

The issue here is by no means an exclusively African. The ugly ghosts of Christian quietism on the one hand and activist Christian enthusiasm on the other has haunted Europe especially in its darkest hours, the Nazi and Communist periods.

The operative term then was the same as in Africa now -- "two kingdoms," meaning a grotesque distortion of a Lutheran doctrine by that name. Its ghost, too, preoccupied the Potomac conference.

In reality, this doctrine describes God's two-fold reign in this world, where the Christian holds, in a sense, two passports. He is a citizen of the finite secular realm, where God acts in a hidden way.

Here natural reason is "the empress," according to Luther, and the governing authorities, though appointed by God, do not rule by the Gospel but by "the sword," the symbol of worldly power.

They need not be Christian as long as they act intelligently. It is better to have a "wise Turk than a foolish Christian" on the throne, Luther said.

But then there is also the infinite realm of the God revealed in Christ, of the Gospel, the Church, forgiveness, grace, faith and love. These two realms are not antagonistic to one another, as the doctrine's detractors would have you believe.

They serve each other. The secular realm assures good order so that the Gospel may be preached. And the spiritual realm admonishes and teaches secular rulers.

Far from preaching quietism, Luther called quietist preachers unfaithful pigs. "These are worthless, lazy preachers who do not tell the princes and lords their sins," he railed. "In some cases they do not notice these sins. They lie down and snore like swine, they take up the room where good preachers should stand."

Isabel Mukonyora, a Zimbabwean theologian, argued in an interview with United Press International that the pace of Evangelical growth on her continent has been too rapid for this kind of dialectical reflection to prevail in contemporary African theology.

She finds this troubling and fears that without theological depth the spread of evangelical -- and especially Pentecostal -- Christianity might in the end prove to be a straw fire.

History teaches us that while the bone-headed quietist misinterpretation of Romans 13, against which Luther thundered, proved disastrous, so did the utopian attempt of activist clerics to blur the distinction between the two realms.

Where this occurs, the devil is at work, said Luther. For Satan never ceases to "cook and brew the two realms together." In other words, the Church should speak up where secular rulers act contrary to Scripture. It should be a prophetic voice but not presume the duties of the state.

In Luther's rich language, a preacher "must grab into the princes' snouts but not interfere with their craft."

As the Potomac conference showed, Africa is far from immune from such interference by evangelical and other churchmen rightly rejoicing in their triumph. But Vinay Samuel, a Church of England canon who headed the Bible and Ballot Box project that was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, offered good news Wednesday.

"The problem has been recognized," he told UPI, "this is why we are churning out competent African theologians at an accelerated pace. We have already produced 15 African Ph.D.s." By "we," Indian-born Samuel meant the Oxford Center of Missionary Studies, an evangelical institution linked to the Universities of Leeds and Wales.

As a result, it is hoped that sophisticated Reformation and other doctrines on Romans 13 will give structure to the currently sometimes feral ferment of Christian growth south of the Sahara.

To this Luther aficionado, however, it is particularly gratifying that the Wittenberg reformer's often-maligned but immensely topical thoughts on matters of church and state will get a new hearing on what seems to evolve into the most Christian of continents -- Africa.

Copyright © 2002 United Press International
 


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: Jerry_M
...the IIIx will become a "Jerry" machine with my Bible, some good reformed docs, and some ham radio software.

Sounds like some real PDA fun to me. And, not too far back, I would have scoffed at the idea that these devices are useful. Finally, they're substantial enough in storage and display to be taken seriously. They already have 1 gigabyte flash memories on the market. And they're bringing out the Oqo which is a pocket-sized micro-notebook that runs full-blown Windows XP and can dock as a regular desktop computer.

It's the future. But for now, these smaller devices can already deliver a tremendous wallop. I know a lot of techs who store vast amounts of PDF technical documents on the PDAs already.

BTTT
61 posted on 07/04/2002 7:11:52 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; George W. Bush
You picked the wrong battlefield for this fight. I have William A Jurgens "The Faith of the Early Fathers" in my home library.

So what?

I will NOT engage in a point by point refutation of your falsehoods. I will merely cite your first error re Clement. In his "Who is the rich man that is saved?", a.d. 190/210, St. Clement of Alexandria says this about Peter..."On hearing these words, the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminnent, the first among he disciples, for whom alone with Himself the Savior paid the tribute, quickly grasped their meaning..."

What kind of debate tactic is this, playing directly into my hands and proving my own arguments for me??

Sure, Clement calls Peter "pre-eminent" among the Apostles, as he surely was in the early Pentecost/post-Pentecost period (roughly Acts 1-5). And Clement also tells us that Peter deferred his "pre-eminence" to James, who was elected to the "Episcopal Throne" at Jerusalem (NOT Rome) as the "Bishop of bishops".

Cribbing from second hand sources to attack Divinely-constituted authority might seem "Triumphalistic" to some but it is a truimphalism of a very odd sort. I will not waste my time "debating" such rudimentary facts. Lets those with eyes to see read. The writings of the Catholic Church Fathers are availaable at www.newadvent.com

Clement, Eusebius, Josephus, the Bible itself... these are not "second hand sources" or "fabulous tales". The evidence of History is overwhelming, and it is utterly damning to the false Private Interpretation of "petrine supremacy".

Peter himself did not believe in "Petrine Supremacy"; rather, Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17) and Peter obeyed James (Acts 15: 13-22) and Peter deferred to James (Acts 21:18) and Peter feared James (Galatians 2:12). What kind of Petrine "Papacy" is this!!

In fact, not a single verse of Scripture suggests any kind of "Petrine Succession", and such a dogma was NOT the practice of the Early Church:

Your entire religious superstructure is founded upon an erroneous "private interpretation"... a Lie.

You post your hit-and-run Links and hope that they constitute an "answer", but the truth is that you have NO counter-argument -- and you know it.

You are grasping at straws, CG, but you cannot save your edifice of Lies from the witness of the Early Church historians, and the Bible Itself.

62 posted on 07/04/2002 9:56:46 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Clement, Eusebius, Josephus, the Bible itself... these are not "second hand sources" or "fabulous tales". The evidence of History is overwhelming, and it is utterly damning to the false Private Interpretation of "petrine supremacy".

What can I say? Excellent rebuttal!
63 posted on 07/04/2002 10:47:29 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
KJV bump. I'm not precisely an onlyist. I just strongly tend to trust far more the Bible that evangelized the English-speaking world and withstood centuries of scrutiny by orthodox scholars instead of these modernist Bibles, nearly all relying upon the work of heretics and unbelievers and whose text is guaranteed to change every so many years in order to retain their copyrights and profits. So enjoy your current NAS for now. But don't bother to memorize it. They're going to change it several more times in your lifetime for the sake of publishing profits. But I'll readily admit that I'll look to other sources when studying a key verse. I don't want to be ignorant of other translations or ignore the changes in the English language since the last revision of the KJV over 150 years ago. Some of the argument over the 1611 bit are specious. All current KJV bibles (except a few specialty editions) are a revision from the early nineteenth century. But an 1828 Websters dictionary is enough to clarify archaic words.

Amen for your KJV bump!

64 posted on 07/05/2002 1:56:52 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Richard Kimball
Paul really got a raw deal: "For I will show him how he must suffer for my name"

This may sound like a nit pick: but this is a quotation not apropos to the argument. Paul, while still Saul, did his best to trash Jesus Christ to the point of getting Christians violently killed. He had to suffer more than most other Christians, as a matter of poetic justice. Christians must be willing to suffer when God calls them to do so for the sake of Jesus Christ, but they should not idolize suffering itself. Paul didn't; as a Christian he had pleasant times as well as painful.

65 posted on 07/05/2002 2:20:19 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
If we really wanted to be originalists, we would study in Hebrew and Greek. The divine inspiration of the literal words took place in those languages, not in Latin or English or Russian or what have you. Argue with the secular Nestle compilation all you want, but it does give the most objective statistical view of the New Testament manuscripts that we have, and is the reason why most modern translations have footnotes on the variant readings. I'm the opposite of an onlyist; I'm an "allist." To ask the question of which one Bible we should trust, foolishly presupposes an answer of a certain kind. It's like asking what one food you would eat.
66 posted on 07/05/2002 2:31:32 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
And Calvinist Christians ARE moving... as fast as we can.

ping

67 posted on 07/05/2002 3:11:40 AM PDT by TomSmedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
How good does a government have to get before it passes the "Seneca test"? How is it that the conduct of any fallible man be a yardstick? This is an idea totally foreign to the Bible.

Rather the principle is that government should be obeyed to any point short of sinning. Even a tyrannical government is almost always better than no government at all.
Did not Paul write that Christians "joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property"? Yes, the Bible does say that! We are very very fortunate that we live in a country that officially ordains the freedom for its government to be roundly criticized and complained about. Only at our peril do we mistake this freedom for a divinely ordained right.
68 posted on 07/05/2002 3:29:00 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Goodbye,O.P.
69 posted on 07/05/2002 5:26:15 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Peter himself did not believe in "Petrine Supremacy"; rather, Peter reported to James (Acts 12:17)"
I will cite this error as yet another example of why it is impossible to have an exchange with you. Anyone can read Acts 12:17 and see it refers to Peter, after being freed from prison by an angel,going to the house of Mary, the mother of John, and when they answer the door upon which he has been knocking, he tells them how the Lord brought him out of prison and he tells them to inform James and the brethren about the events.

Now, OP, in your twisted view, that Scripture somehow is tortured to mean that Peter is "reporting to James." That is, quite simply, insane.
I knew I was wrong to even make the attempt to have an exchange with you and it is a mistake I won't ever make again. Goodbye
70 posted on 07/05/2002 5:57:11 AM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Well, certainly a novel playing of the "thou-art-insane" theological trump card.

Hopefully, OPie won't be too crushed to retort...
71 posted on 07/05/2002 6:42:15 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Darth Sidious
I wonder if the Founding Fathers sinned when they resisted the authorities... namely King George III.

Actually, the political literature of their day included several books derived from the famous Chapter XX of Calvin's Institutes. Since magistrates are in the business of doing justice (enforcing God's law), we honor God by resisting those who go off the rails. The American "revolution" was more of a conservative counter-revolution, under the direction of duly constituted "lesser magistrates," against the revolutionary madness of King George and his renegade parliment.

72 posted on 07/05/2002 6:51:24 AM PDT by TomSmedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy; George W. Bush
Now, OP, in your twisted view, that Scripture somehow is tortured to mean that Peter is "reporting to James." That is, quite simply, insane.

The Scripture says what it says: Peter reported to James. The other apostles were afterthoughts by comparison.

Just like in Acts 21:18, when Paul goes to see the Council, and all the Bishops were present. But does Paul give a whit about Peter's presence? No, Paul could not care less about Peter; James is the Head Poohbah of Acts 21:18, and the Bible says so. Which accounts for Peter's FEAR of James in Galatians 2. Some "pope"!!

You know these verses annihilate your position. So, you now tuck your tail between your legs and run back to Rome, even though you now know for a fact that her claims are lies. Think about what that means for your soul, CG.....

I knew I was wrong to even make the attempt to have an exchange with you and it is a mistake I won't ever make again. Goodbye.

Huh. (OP snorts derisively, blows the smoke from his theological six-shooters). Another one bites the dust.

Next??


73 posted on 07/05/2002 7:35:05 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Ironsides bump. ;^)
74 posted on 07/05/2002 8:42:48 AM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck; headsonpikes
Did not Paul write that Christians "joyfully accepted the confiscation of their property"?

Sure, but they weren't so nutty as to actively vote in favor of the confiscation of their property!!

As a Christian -- yeah, you can tolerate State Theft (even joyfully, relying on God's provision)... but you can't vote for it, that's a Violation of the Eighth Commandment!!

75 posted on 07/05/2002 9:14:33 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
The anarchists on this website have a big problem with that as well.
76 posted on 07/05/2002 9:22:02 AM PDT by Don Myers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"I fear one Calvinist protestant armed with a slingshot more than I fear a dozen Arminian protestants armed with shotguns", said the old Jesuit apologists...

That's because the Jesuits knew full well which kind of Protestant would just talk and which kind would shoot.
77 posted on 07/05/2002 11:01:52 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
That's because the Jesuits knew full well which kind of Protestant would just talk and which kind would shoot.

Heh... Personally, I secretly suspect it was because the wily Jesuits knew that the Arminian's shotguns were Roman-supplied, and only fired ammunition designed to damage Protestant Doctrine.

78 posted on 07/05/2002 11:15:30 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley
ping
79 posted on 07/05/2002 11:37:35 AM PDT by GTXfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
this is a quotation not apropos to the argument.

I probably wasn't clear enough in the original post. A lot of televangelists say that they drive a Mercedes because they trust Jesus and Jesus intended for them to drive a Mercedes. It's part of the "name it, claim it", which IMHO has a lot more to do with new age visualization than Christianity. A person who truly commits to following Christ doesn't do it because of promises of riches in this world. Christ never suffered simply for the point of self-pain, and in fact, prayed to not suffer the pain of the crucifiction. However, he followed the path laid out for him, regardless of where it went. If I implied that Christians should SEEK suffering, please accept my apology. My point was intended to be that I hear a lot of people claim they want to be used by Christ. Well, St. Stephen was used by Christ, he got in one good sermon, and they stoned him to death. He did not seek the stoning, but he did what was asked of him, without regard to the consequences.

80 posted on 07/05/2002 2:01:01 PM PDT by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson