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
How do you feel about the NKJV?
I think that the NKJV is basically an NIV which has been stylistically rendered in a manner simlarly to the KJV, but is not a KJV.
In other words, in one of the most often mis-used passages of Scripture -- Romans 13, which has been abused to suggest that Christians should submit to a near-total subordination to Government -- the NKJV suffers from the exact same problem as the other Modern Translations... it suggests no "check" whatsoever on the Power of Government.
The Old King James, archaic though its wording may often be in many places, is the more accurate translation of the Romans 13 Greek, "higher powers", and thereby implies a check on the power of Government (the State's subordination to God) -- an important theological distinction which the Modern Translations (including the NKJV) do not preserve.
That's a good example. Thanks!
There were many King James Versions, so isn't it hard to know WHICH of them is the most accurate, if you don't just assume that "rev xxx" the latest is the best? Earlier versions for example included the apochrapha, which is now totally missing. That's dropping entire books, just to please the British and American Bible Societies, but some of those books were in the Bible Jesus used, if I'm not mistaken.
Why would we want to be 'originalists'? What we want to know is what does God say!
The divine inspiration of the literal words took place in those languages, not in Latin or English or Russian or what have you.
2Tim.3:16 says all scripture is given by inspiration...thus, if we have scripture (and we do) it is inspired (Heb.4:12,1Pet.1:23,1Thess.2:13)
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.
There is nothing objective about Nestles. It understates the number of ms support for Receptus readings and readings found in church fathers.
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.
That is not a foolish question at all. We should eat the food that God gives us,
But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, besides this manna, before our eyes (Nu.11:6)God has given us His 'manna' in the AV1611, but men want to 'lust after flesh'(Nu.11:4)
I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food (Job.23:12) And for those who reject God's words,Behold the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water but of hearing of he words of the Lord (Amos 8:11)So, asking what food to eat is a very good question!
from the time of AD 100 till 1611, there was no Bible since the KJV wasn't translated yet?
And do I have to use a 1611 KJV, or is the 1742 Revision acceptable?
Loony....
Did I ever say that the AV1611 was the only Bible in history!
Talk about loony!
There were many Bibles before the AV1611 including the very fine Geneva, based on the Textus Receptus.
In that line of Bibles you find a German Luther's, a Spainish, a Italian, a Czech, a Dutch, well, many translations from the right Greek/Hebrew text, translated by men who believed that they were translating the words of God and not just another book (NIV, NAB, NKJ)
I would be happy to provide you a list of the Bibles before the AV1611!
The only difference is in spelling and printing errors that were corrected.
Thus, you may use either with full confidence you have the pure words of God.
The Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the 1611 has never be changed unlike the modern versions which are always changing their readings.
Last time Nestles had to reinsert 300 readings from the Receptus showing that the King James had been right all a long!
I don't mind the KJV -- but it is not superior to any other good translation (NAS, NKJV, and to a lesser extant, NIV), and it is certainly not superior to a study of the autographs, which we can say we have with a reasonable degree of certaintly.
The Greek text underlying the KJV was Erasamus's NT. A brilliant work of scholarship in its own right, to be sure, but limited because of the challanges Erasamus faced in getting manuscripts. For instance, he had to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate certain portions (shooting from the hip, not quite sure which portions). He did a respectable job, but archaelogy marches on -- and more MSS'es were found. They generally vindicated Erasamus, but in other areas revealed a better rendering.
God did not speak in the noble prose of 1611 (or 1742) King James English, but rather the earthy, easily understood common Koine greek. If God were to inspire the Sciptures in the intellectual Attic Greek, then we might have a leg to stand on for the KJV-only position. But he used the common language-- and why should we do any differently?
This new-age conspiracy crap of Riplinger et al. is certainly not correct. It is based on ignorance, misplaced fears, shoddy scholarship, and blatant mischaracterizations and slander. Unfortunately, Evangelical Christianity has overreacted to the excesses of higher Criticism and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
I myself use both the KJV and the NASB. Generally, I like the NASB translation because it is easier for exposition to others -- I'm not translating what the archaic English means. But I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for every translation of the KJV. There are some that are just unfortunate. But the same may easily be said of the KJV.
That is held by some in the KJV-only camp. If it does not describe your beliefs, I apologize.
Ofcourse it is better then the Originals. You know why?
(1) We don't have the Originals.
(2)If we did, someone would still have to translate them into English so we could read them!
What we have in the KJB is the perfect translation of the perfectly preserved words of those Originals.
that it was inspired in its translation?
It is inspired because it is Scripture and God has shown that it is 'quick and powerful' by its fruit.
That is held by some in the KJV-only camp. If it does not describe your beliefs, I apologize.
Well, thank you for the offer to apologize that was very gracious.
We look at the KJ as a culumnation of a long line of Bibles in the line of the Received text.
We do not hold that the KJ is the only Bible, only that it is the only Bible for the English speaking world.
Well, can you prove an error. Can you prove that the KJ translated something that cannot be translated that way?
I don't mind the KJV -- but it is not superior to any other good translation (NAS, NKJV, and to a lesser extant, NIV), and it is certainly not superior to a study of the autographs, which we can say we have with a reasonable degree of certaintly.
One, we do not have the autographs. Two, the NAS and NIV come from a corrupt text. The NKJ used the right text, but still snuck in some corrupt non-King James readings.
The Greek text underlying the KJV was Erasamus's NT. A brilliant work of scholarship in its own right, to be sure, but limited because of the challanges Erasamus faced in getting manuscripts. For instance, he had to back-translate from the Latin Vulgate certain portions (shooting from the hip, not quite sure which portions). He did a respectable job, but archaelogy marches on -- and more MSS'es were found. They generally vindicated Erasamus, but in other areas revealed a better rendering.
Actually, the Greek text underlying the KJB was Beza's 5 edition. They had many years since Eramus to collect additional evidence for the correct readings.
They also knew the other readings since they had the Catholic Douey-Rheims version in front of them, which used the Vaticanus manuscript.
They KJB translators were also experts in their fields of translation, one even having every Greek work extant in his own home!
God did not speak in the noble prose of 1611 (or 1742) King James English, but rather the earthy, easily understood common Koine greek. If God were to inspire the Sciptures in the intellectual Attic Greek, then we might have a leg to stand on for the KJV-only position. But he used the common language-- and why should we do any differently?
The King James 'language' is 'common' without being 'gutteral'. We are talking about the words of God and they should have some dignity.
When the text demands it the KJ is as blunt as necessary.
This new-age conspiracy crap of Riplinger et al. is certainly not correct. It is based on ignorance, misplaced fears, shoddy scholarship, and blatant mischaracterizations and slander. Unfortunately, Evangelical Christianity has overreacted to the excesses of higher Criticism and thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
Now, you are just repeating what you heard. What Riplinger points out about the words being attacked is true as is the attempts against the Canon itself.
Note attempts to put in the Apocrypha books. An excellent book (not from a King James defender) is called Spirit Wars (I have forgotten the authors name).
Read it and see if view that there is an attack by the NewAgers is being overblown!
I myself use both the KJV and the NASB. Generally, I like the NASB translation because it is easier for exposition to others -- I'm not translating what the archaic English means. But I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for every translation of the KJV. There are some that are just unfortunate. But the same may easily be said of the KJV.
One, there are relativity few words that are actually 'Archaic' in the King James.
Two, the NAS is constantly having to change because its Greek and Hebrew Text are changed. Do you know where most of the those changes end up? Back to the King James readings (example Lk.24:51-52, 'carried up into heaven and they worshipped him' were recently put in)
As for using other 'versions' you are free to do so, it is after all a free country.
We just do not regard them as Bibles! And we will continue to say so.
#64,#84,#86,#87,#90,#91
m
Au contriare. I know that of which I speak becuase I read her book. I was once KJV-only, like you.
Luther translated the Bible into English?
Better check your history books again.
Incidentally, both the foreward to the 1611 KJV and John Foxe confirm that there were English translations of Scripture long before the KJV. In fact, the Catholic Douay-Rheims (still in print today!) preceded the KJV by a few years.
No, it's not a single verse. It's about 30 of them.
and such a dogma was NOT the practice of the Early Church
Take it up with Irenaeus of Lyons, who laid it out very neatly in Against Heresies. But, I must warn you, he probably has forgotten more about the early church than you know.
OK, shall we deal with some specifics?
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.