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
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
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.
Amen for your KJV bump!
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.
ping
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.
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??
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!!
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.
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.
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.