christians & politics

8/14/2019 Christians & Politics

1/41

SOJOURNERS on the issuesA discussion guide from the editors ofSojourners magazine

SOJOURNERS3333 14th Street NW,

Suite 200

Washington, DC 20010

www.sojo.net

SOJOURNERS on the issues

Christiansand Politics

DISCUSSION GUIDE

This series is designed to

spark discussion and

thought about how to live

out Gods call for justice in

our world.This guide

includes four sessions,

each with Sojournersarti-

cles, questions for discus-

sion, and ideas for further

study.We recommend

printing out the guide for

each person and allowing

everyone time to read

before the group meets.

The resources here are a

starting point for a further

journeywhere will the

Spirit lead your group?


2/41 2

SOJOURNERS on the issuesA discussion guide from the editors ofSojourners magazine

Christians and PoliticsSESSION 1

Biblical Foundations

Pauls View of the State (Part I), by Robert A. Sabath

Biblical Politics, by Jim Wallis

SESSION 2

Honoring the Government, Serving God

Pauls View of the State (Part II), by Robert A. Sabath

We Pledge Allegiance, by Gerald W. Schlabach

SESSION 3

Why Vote? The Values of Voting, by Marie Dennis The Miracle of South Africa, by Jim Wallis

SESSION 4

Religion in Public Office

The Courage of Conviction,

an interview with Mark O. Hatfield Dangerous Religion: George W. Bushs Theology of Empire,

by Jim Wallis


Copyright 2007Sojourners/Call to Renewal.Purchase of this discussion

guide includes permission toprint up to 10 copies for use ina group study. If you need morethan 10 copies, we ask that youpurchase an additional licensefor each 10 copies needed.Please do not distribute eitherthe original PDF or printedcopies beyond your groupsimmediate use. To reprint anarticle in this guide, please seeour reprint permission policy byvisiting www.sojo.net: click onabout us, copyright policy.

The fledgling Christiancommunities of the New

Testament lived under the

thumb of the Roman

Empire. Early church lead-

ers lives and epistles por-

tray the functions of the

state as a partial good

when it is doing good.

Where does a careful study

of Romans 13in which

we are to distinguish

between the honor due

the government and the

fear due to Godlead

us in evaluating our social

and political actions today?

Combining Bible study,

political analysis, and

reflections on current

events, this collection of

Sojourners articles is part

of a series designed to

spark discussion, thought,and action about how to

live out the call to serve

God in our world.


3/41 3

SESSION 1Biblical Foundations

Pauls View of the State (Part I), by Robert A. Sabath

Biblical Politics, by Jim Wallis

Robert Sabath examines the relationship between the New Testament churchand the government under which it livedthe Roman Empire. He argues thatchurch leaders lives and epistles portray the state as a partial good, serving

God when it works well, but Satan when it goes beyond its right boundaries. JimWallis applies these insights to the United States in an essay written shortly after theVietnam War. He suggests several things of which the United States might be called

to repent, including runaway consumerism and support for dictatorships.

Questions to Consider

1. What formed your own view of the relationship between religion and the state?Faith and government? Personal conversion and politics? Has your perspectivechanged over time?

2. Under the Roman Empire, according to Sabath, it was not possible to divide thereligious and the political into two neat, separate realms, because the statedemanded religious worship of Caesar. Today, the state makes fewer overtlyreligious demands, but Christians still believe that the state is not the real centerof power and authority. In light of Pauls perspective, what are the similarities

and differences between the Roman Empire and the government under which youlive? How do these differences affect your faith communitys relation to thestate?

3. Wallis writes that the fallenness of the world and the presence of the kingdom [ofGod] live in fundamental tension, and that the church must live in this tension.What are specific examples of this tension in your experience? How have youobserved different people and communities of faith respond to this tension?

Resources

For up-to-the-minute political commentary from a Christian perspective, subscribeto Sojourners free weekly e-mail newsletter, SojoMail (subscribe at www.sojo.net).

For a comparison between Sabaths reading of Revelation (in which Babylon repre-sents Rome and earthly governments generally) and other popular readings ofRevelation (in which Babylon represents various modern-day countries), see WesHoward-Brooks two-part study, Apocalypse Soon? (Sojourners, January-February1999) and Come Out of Her My People (Sojourners, March-April 1999).

SOJOURNERS on the issuesChristians and Politics


1


4/41 4

PAULS VIEW OF THE STATE (Part I)by Robert A. Sabath(13:1) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is noauthority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (2)Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and thosewho resist will incur judgment. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, butto bad. Would you have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you willreceive its approval, (4) For it is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong,be afraid, for it does not bear the sword in vain; it is the servant of God to executeits wrath on the wrongdoer. (5) Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoidGods wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (6) For the same reason you also

pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. (7)

Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue isdue, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (Romans 13:1-7)

Few passages of scripture have been as consistently misused and misunder-stood as Romans 13. Such passages as this have forced Christians on boththe right and left to wonder whether biblical radicalism is a contradictionof terms. Those on the right balk at talk of a discipleship that at times neces-

sitates resistance to particular actions of a given state. They wonder whether suchtalk is being biblically irresponsible, because doesnt Paul plainly say, Whoeverresists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist willincur judgment?

Many Christians on the left, sensitive to the need for a Christian resistance andoften wanting to be biblically responsible themselves, have tended to downplay their

biblical roots out of embarrassment from Paul in such passages as Romans 13. Orthey have dealt with such passages in a way that ultimately undermines the meaningof biblical authority in any practical sense, by arguing that some biblical teachingsare culturally conditioned, but offering no criteria for determining which ones, excepttheir own offended sensitivities (which are themselves culturally conditioned).

The concern of this article will not be a detailed treatment of Romans 13 or anextensive examination of any one problem, but a more comprehensive general viewof Pauls teaching, attitude and action as it pertains to the state. The indirect teach-ings of Paul will be examined to show how he himself interpreted and acted uponhis direct statements, and a contrasting historical situation in Revelations 13 will beconsidered to indicate the attitude of other biblical writers toward the state. In parttwo, the terminology and context of Romans 13 will be looked at in some detail.

THOUGH ROMANS 13 is the most extensive single passage of direct teaching onthe state in the New Testament, it is not the center of biblical teaching on the sub-ject. Biblical teaching has been consistently misunderstood by making Romans 13absolute and considering it in isolation from the rest of the New Testament material.The extent and diversity of material is larger than one at first might imagine. Thereare not only four other passages of direct teaching (1 Timothy 2:1-7, Titus 3:1-3, 1Peter 2:13-17, Mark 12:13-17 and parallels), but numerous other passages of indi-rect teaching with secondary reference to the state. By showing how the authorsthemselves interpreted and acted upon their direct statements about the state, such

passages shed a qualifying light on the passages of primary teaching and show howthe state was viewed in differing historical circumstances.

The record of Pauls encounter with civil authorities in Acts suggests that what



1


5/41


6/41

that is to take on greater prominence with John at the end of the centurythe gov-

erning authorities are in some sense regarded as agents of Satan, doing Satans hin-dering work. Though the New Testament recognizes the state as willed by God andas a divinely ordained principle to protect human life from the powers of chaos, it isalso aware of the demonic possibilities inherent within the state. The paradox andthe tension of being at the same time both minister of God and instrument ofSatan is fundamental to an understanding of the state in the New Testament. Thesetwo sorts of assertions which seem to be contradictory actually proceed from oneand the same fundamental attitude toward the state as necessary, but provisional andtemporary.

This same attitude of ambivalence toward the state and its functions is seen in 1Corinthians 6:lff: When one of you has a grievance against another, do you dare goto law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?If then you have such cases,why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? It is false

to read Romans 13 apart from such passages as above, or to read 1 Corinthians 6apart from the passages of direct teaching. The one is the complement of the other.Oscar Cullmann wrote, Whoever interprets Romans 13:lff without reference to thecontext must necessarily find a complete contradiction between Romans 13:1ff and1 Corinthians 6:lff...What is said in Romans 13:1ff stands in the background of 1Corinthians 6, but is not explicit here, just as what is said in 1 Corinthians 6 standsin the background of the Romans passage, but is not explicit there.

1 Corinthians 6 deals with the same function of the state mentioned in Romans13:3-4, the administration of justice. In Romans, Paul assumes that the Roman stateknows how to judge, that it knows how to discriminate between good and evil, andthat it punishes only the evil. In 1 Corinthians 6, however, Paul orders theCorinthian Christians not to bring their lawsuits before the states courts of justice,

but to keep away from this institution. Cullmann wrote,

Here we see clearly that for Paul there exists a limit to the recognition of any state.Even to the extent that it remains within its legitimate limits (and the administrationof justice in the Roman state is a legitimate function), the state is nothing absolute,nothing final...This chapter shows us in an especially clear manner that it is false toascribe to Paul in Romans 13:1ff the opinion that the state is by nature a divine

form and that its principles are equally valid as those Jesus deduced from theexpectation of the Kingdom of God...If it were of divine nature, then according to

Paul the Christians could bring their litigations before the state just as well asbefore the congregation. Here we see the limit which is set to all affirmation, evenof the legitimate state: It is a temporary institution.

THIS APPARENT CONTRADICTORY stance of the first Christians toward the

state is nowhere more clearly indicated than in the contrast of Revelations 13 andRomans 13. That John describes the state as in some way the special incarnation ofthe power of evil on earth and the most tangible embodiment of Satanic power ofhis day seems to be in conflict with Pauls view of the state as a minister of God.John describes the Roman Empire in Revelation as a beast from the abyssempowered by the dragon Satan and endowed with the full powers of the Devil forthe Devils work in the world (Revelation 13:1, 2; cf. 17:7-18 and 12:9).

John adopts the imagery of the four beasts in Daniel 7, which represent the fourkingdoms of the world, and concentrates the features of all four into one. The beastof Revelation is thus an abstraction of all the world powers that had gone before andhas reference to that which is universally true of all world powers (cf. the tempta-tion narratives, where the kingdoms of the world are in Satans power to give to



1

Pauls Viewof the State

(cont.)

6


7/41

Christ). The symbolism of the beast thus suggests that it is archetypical of the

demonic in triumph in any nation.

SOME OF THE apparent conflict arises from contrasting historical situations in thewritings of Romans and Revelation. The persecutions of both Nero and Domitianwere subsequent to Pauls writing of Romans, which was written about A.D. 57 dur-ing that period of Neros reign when there was relative calm throughout the

provinces and before the subsequent persecutions broke out in A.D. 64. Revelationwas not written until the last decade of the first century, at the end of Domitiansreign, when Rome had reached the height of both its power and its moral insensitiv-ity. The empires enormous wealth and extravagant luxury were offset by a back-ground of extreme poverty (18:11-16; cf. 6:5, 6). Already the corrupting influenceof its power and affluence was experienced worldwide (18:3) under the banner of arampant nationalism that proclaimed Pax Romana.

Domitian (A.D. 81-96) was the first Roman emperor to take seriously his owndivinity and to insist on emperor worship as a loyalty test. Against every form ofresistance he unleashed one of the most intense political persecutions that historyhas known. A stubborn resistance group, first called Christians in Syrian Antioch,

bore the brunt of Domitians wrath. They believed that another should be wor-shiped. While a political prisoner in exile on Patmos, a small barren island in theAegean Sea used as a penal settlement by the Romans, one of the early Christianleaders wrote the revelation of John, perhaps the most political piece of literaturein the entire Bible. Here was a political-religious manifesto that declared openresistance to the Roman Empire. Here was the Christians first tractate against thehellish iniquities and arrogant nationalism of the worlds most powerful nation.Thus, according as the state remains within its proper limits or transgresses them,the Christian will describe it as the servant of God or as the instrument of the Devil.

That just 35 years elapsed between the writing of Romans 13 and Revelation 13suggests that even a legitimate state which knows how to distinguish between goodand evil is always in danger of becoming Satanic. There is an inevitable drifttoward the demonic: Caesar always and irresistibly tends toward demanding forhimself not only that which is Caesars but that which is Gods.

The seven heads of the beast (Revelation 13:1) are later explained as sevenkings (Revelation 17:10). Commentators are divided over whether these seven kingsrepresent the succession of Roman emperors from Caesar to Domitian or whetherthey are simply symbolic, representing the Roman power as a historic whole. Ineither case, the same emperor that Paul described as the minister of God in A.D.57 is included in these seven heads as part of the beast that from beginning to end isthe manifestation of Satans presence on earth and the Devils special instrument.Again we can see the paradox and the tension of being at the same time both min-

ister of God and instrument of Satan as fundamental to an understanding of thestate in the New Testament, teaching both the necessity of the state as willed byGod to meet the emergency of a fallen creation as well as the demonic possibilitiesat all times inherent within the state.

The book of Revelation also highlights a much ignored input in constructing apolitically responsible discipleship in the 20th century: that is, the political signifi-cance of all of scripture. Major doctrines have crucial political implications and acritical significance in translating New Testament teaching into a changed culturalcontext. Nowhere in the New Testament is the relationship between worship and

politics more clearly seen than in Revelation.The pervasive sense of worship in Revelation reaches maximum intensity in

chapters 17-19 where the fall of Babylon (= Rome) occasions a celebration in heav-



1


(cont.)

7


8/41

en. The death of a society, once the richest and most powerful, does not seem to be

an appropriate time for rejoicing. Yet the destruction of this powerful city is associ-ated with the salvation of the world (19:1) and is a sign of the sovereign rule and

justice of God over nations (19:2,6). Only those who profit by its power and afflu-ence mourn its fall. Only the heavens and the people of God who have come out ofher. who have disentangled themselves from implication in Babylons corruption(18:4), have occasion to rejoice. Thus is made a bold contrast between the silencethat is the sole remain of a once mighty city and the thunderous celebration of theheavenly multitude. And in contrast to the three dirges of woe uttered by the kingsof the earth, the merchants of the earth, and the shipmasters, there are threeoutbursts of hallelujah by the heavenly chorus (19:1,3,6): Hallelujah! Salvation andglory and power belong to our God. Hallelujah! Her smoke rises up forever andever. Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS of worshiping God and the religious implica-tions of worshiping an emperor or a nation are unmistakable in the third outburst of

praise to God following the destruction of Rome: Hallelujah! For the Lord ourGod, the Almighty, is King (reigns is a cognate verb form of the noun for kingand is thus better translated is king). The author adopts two titles normallyreserved for the emperorLord God and Kingand applies them to God,imputing to God that which the emperor assigned exclusively to himself.

In the thought-world of the first century it was not possible to divide the relig-ious and the political into two neat, separate realms. Religious assertions such asJesus is King or Yahweh is Lord God had necessary political implications thatgalvanized civil authorities such as Caesar is King or Caesar is Lord God hadnecessary religious implications that restricted Christians from participation in theimperial cult and made them a political-religious resistance movement.

For the early Christians to say Jesus is King was as much a political as a theo-logical affirmation. For them to say only Yahweh is the Lord God was to registera political protest. To worship Caesar as Lord God and King was to contribute tocivic stability; the imperial cult was the cement that held the empire together. WhenChristians held themselves above the authority of the state by worshiping anotherLord God and another King, they were therefore completely disruptive and athreat to the empire. When political powers demand the worship of unconditionalobedience that assumes individuals should assign them ultimate value, then worshipof God and the assigning of ultimate value to his kingdom becomes a radical act, a

political threat.The first Christians did not try to overturn the Roman Empire by force or to use

it for their own purposes. Simply by believing that Rome was not the real center ofpower and authority and by fleshing out that belief in daily, active worship, they so

threatened the system that the Romans felt compelled to exterminate them. For theearly Christians the Roman Empire, then approaching the zenith of its power, wasalready fallen. So certain was its destruction that in typically prophetic fashionJohn employed the past tense (18:3; 14:8) Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!Living in daily expectancy of its catastrophic end, this small group of worshipersdid not consider their primary allegiance to be to the present order. The empire withall the power of its luxury (18:3) held neither attraction nor threat for the little

band that dared to live as if the emperor and his kingdom were not.

Robert Sabath was an original member of the Sojourners community and is the Web site developer atSojourners. This article appeared in the April 1974 Post-American, the original name ofSojournersmagazine.



1


(cont.)

8


9/41 9

BIBLICAL POLITICSby Jim Wallis

America is a fallen nation. The Fall is the principle spiritual and politicalfact of the American nation. This is what the Bible teaches and it is whatthe American church refuses to believe. If we had believed the Bible, wewould not ignore the oppression of the poor, we would not have resisted

the facts of Vietnam, we would not have been surprised by Watergate. The chaos,the insanity, the brutality that is America can only be adequately explained by the

biblical doctrine of the Fall: the alienation of the whole of creation from God. Thebiblical doctrine describes the Fall as pervasive, not only affecting persons, but alsorelationships, institutions, nations, corporations, movements, ideologiesall the

principalities and powers. The American churchs doctrine of the Fall is naive, nar-

row, trivial, and misinformed. Our preaching and practice serve to deny the realityof the Fall and claim a special exemption from the Fall for our own nation.

There are those who are made uncomfortable with the suggestion that their ownnation bears major responsibility for the sufferings of people. They recoil when oth-ers accuse their nation of military aggression, imperialism, or the exercise of massviolence for selfish interests. They are angered by the charge that their society isfounded upon national arrogance and pride, racial privilege and property values.They are defensive of the economic and political structures of their country thatmaintain and perpetuate injustice. They reject the notion that their nation uses prop-aganda to justify its actions and resorts to repression and naked force when neces-sary to protect its power.

They rather retreat to the more comfortable notion that their nation acts out ofrighteous or, at worse, mistaken motivations; that its basic values, institutions, and

intentions are honorable and noble (i.e. that it acts only to protect freedom at homeand around the world). These social mythologies of national pride have character-ized all nations and have been strongest in those nations that have been mostdestructive and violent.

My basic disagreement with such views is not primarily a political one. In otherwords, it is not merely that we have a different political analysis. The basic flaw insuch views is theological, in that those who hold such views are theologically naive

by failing to take the Fall seriously. Such views are therefore (at least in regard tothe view of ones own nation) liberal rather than orthodox in a biblical sense. Arecognition of the Fall is prerequisite for responsible political action.

When I was in the student movement, I believed, along with most other youngactivists, that evil resided in the national leadership but that the people would make

basic changes if they really knew what was going on. I no longer believe that. The

issues that confront us, the human atrocities that plead for change, are due to morethan lacks in information and technology; rather, they are moral and spiritual ques-tions on which choices are continually made by both the national leadership and the

populace.The choices that are made have a great deal to do with what the Bible calls idol-

atry, the worship of idols. This worship takes many forms, some direct and unmis-takable, some far more subtle. In our times, we witness persons, institutions, andnations in the grip of the contemporary idolatriesto name a few: a consumptivementality, the will to power and domination, a dependence on violence, national

pride and destiny, self-justifying ideologies, and informational systems with theability to turn falsehood into truth. The militant power of these contemporary idola-tries has captured the corporations, the Pentagon, the branches of government, the



1


10/41

universities, even the churches. Their presence is deeply felt in our social and cul-

tural patterns, affecting even the way we relate to one another. The Bible says thatthose who have experienced conversion through the gospel are to be separate fromthe world. But we dont really believe that either. We are separate in small privateways that dont cost us very much, but not in a way that makes serious demandsupon our lives. Thus, being separate from the worlda break with the prevailingidolatries and mythologies of American life and societyis a necessary part of anyresponsible political action.

The American public has developed an amazing capacity for tolerating contra-diction; perhaps that is part of the price of domination. The ironies of it would bealmost humorous were it not for the victimsthose who suffer the consequences ofAmerican contradictions. The public grants extraordinary authority and power to theeconomic and political managers and gets, in exchange, unprecedented affluenceand a protected sense of national pride and destiny. The nation is thus able to stay

on top of the world heap and still hear its leaders continue to talk of our commit-ment to self-determination, freedom, and peace with honor. The government isable to kill a million Indo-Chinese and justify it with saving them from commu-nism or containing the Chinese threat or protecting American lives ordestroying a village to save it or not backing out of our commitments or bring-ing our prisoners home with their heads high depending on the year of the war andthe official administration line.

The nations leaders are exposed lying, cheating, and stealing while still keepingdown the poor and repressing dissent to preserve law and order. The United Statesis able to maintain two dozen dictatorships and still be the leader of the Free World.The American people are able to gobble up over half the worlds consumableresources and still praise God from whom all blessings flow. The prophetic func-tion of truth-telling is a central part of responsible political action.

This political awakening we have experienced, this new awareness that pleadsfor change, requires a rethinking of basic assumptions about our society and aboutourselves. Yet our protest must include more than negation and refusal; it must alsoinclude affirmation and radical alternatives.

Our affirmation must have an adequate basis for values, vision, and goals thatcan provide the motivation, direction, and self-criticism necessary in seeking radicalchange. It must provide a vision that can keep us from the bitterness, despair,hatred, and desperation that causes some to drop out, sell out, or turn their fight for

justice and social change into a murderous crusade. We require total transformation,a new understanding of society and ourselves. As the analysis of our dilemma must

be radical, so must our solution, going to the heart, the root causes of our problems,and being comprehensive enough to avoid simplistic pitfalls.

OPPRESSIVE EGO, HATRED, greed, prejudice, and aggression lurk beneath thesurface as motivations of our individual and corporate lives. We must escape theillusion of every simplistic group that looks only beyond itself for the sources ofhuman misery. We must realize that the evil we oppose lies also within ourselves.Herman Hesse said it well, Now and again I have expressed the opinion that everynation and every person would do better, instead of rocking himself to sleep with

political catchwords about war guilt, to ask himself how far his own faults and neg-ligences and evil tendencies are guilty of the war and all the other wrongs of theworld, and that there lies the only possible means of avoiding the next war.

All this is to say that our affirmation must be a vehicle for personal transforma-tion, the emergence of new people, as well as embody the basis for social liberation.To challenge the system, we must be willing to have our own lives changed, and



1

BiblicalPolitics(cont.)

10


11/41

become radical ourselves. To repudiate the old is not enough; we must act on the

basis of a new reality that we have experienced. The conversion of persons to thegospel of Christ, that is to say, an evangelistic ministry, is central for responsible

political action.

THE GOSPEL DEMANDS political involvement that addresses the needs of peo-ple, that is directed against all these things that bind and oppress people, that con-fronts the political and economic causes of human hurt. In our political involve-ment, we must first seek to be a kingdom-conscious movement of Christian peoplewho by their very existence, presence, and action call into question the values,assumptions, and very structure of our society and free people to live in alternativeways.

A danger in the growth of awareness in the church is the tendency to embrace aliberal political philosophy that also accepts the economic, political, and value

assumptions of the status quo, as do conservative philosophies. We must put pri-mary importance on the active affirmation of the new order in the midst of the old.The politicization of the church can result in the church becoming a power of theworld and exercising its influence as such rather than seeing itself as that eschato-logical community that bears witness to the presence of the kingdom in the commonlife of the world.

The fallenness of the world and the presence of the kingdom live in fundamen-tal tension. The church must live in this tension and recognize the opposition

between the world-system and the kingdom of God. The church is thus an inex-haustible revolutionary force in the world. Its mission is perpetualnot on behalf ofnation, party, program, or ideology, but rather on behalf of the kingdom of God,which may make it victim of the hostility of both the established order and of thosewho seek to overthrow it. Corporately, we must commit ourselves to build a church

that is a sign of Christs presence in the world and thus a counter-sign to the valuesof American society and power. The recovery of the churchs true identity in theworld is most basic to its political responsibility.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief ofSojourners. This article appeared in the April 1974 Post-American, theoriginal name ofSojourners magazine.



1

BiblicalPolitics(cont.)

11


12/41



SESSION 2Honoring the Government, Serving God

Pauls View of the State (Part II), by Robert A. Sabath

We Pledge Allegiance, by Gerald W. Schlabach

In a revealing study of an oft-misinterpreted passage in Romans 13, Sabathdemonstrates that the honor due to government, unlike the fear due to God,does not include unquestioning obedience. Rather, it involves respect for govern-

mental office, even when the Christian must disobey (as Paul does in Acts) or whenthe officeholder is a worthy of contempt (as the emperor Nero was). Most of all,

Sabath argues, the church must not give to Caesar what is Gods, because this willprevent the church from being a prophetic voice for Gods will. In a piece writtenbefore the 2003 war in Iraq, Gerald Schlabach argues that U.S. Christians primaryleader is Christ rather than the president, and that our loyalty should be to Christiansworldwide rather than to citizens of our country.


1. Immediately before telling the Roman church to honor the governing authorities,Paul emphatically tells the church not to be squeezed into [the worlds] mold.What, in your experience, is the worlds mold?

2. Sabath argues that to honor the government in a biblical sense is to recognize its

position in Gods plan for the world. Have you heard the passage in Romans 13used in a different sense? How did you respond then, and how might yourespond now?

3. In what ways would it change your perspective on world events if you were tothink more about how they affect Christians worldwide? The mainstream mediaoften reports on how events affect U.S. citizens. What access do you have toinformation about Christians outside of the United States?

4. How would Pauls perspective be read differently in the pre-Constantine era whenChristians were a persecuted minority? In the age of Christendom whenChristians were the main political power? In a post-Christendom democratic erawhen other religions are growing in numbers and freedom of religion is a tenetof democratic values?

Resources

For a theological reading of human institutions and principalities, which Sabathmentions in his Bible study, see Walter Winks The Powers That Be: Theology for a

New Millennium (Doubleday, 1999).

There are many sources of information on Christians worldwide. A few useful onesare the World Council of Churches Ecumenical News International (www.eni.ch),Catholic news at Agenzia Fides (www.fides.org), and World Faith News service(www.wfn.org).

12

2


13/41

2 13



PAULS VIEW OF THE STATE (PART II)by Robert A. Sabath

Two commonly misunderstood motifs in Romans 13 and the other passagesof direct teaching on the state are submission and honor. A carefulstudy of these two terms reveals that there is a significant difference

between submission and obedience, and between honor and fear.

Submission vs. obedience. Let every person be subject to the governing authori-ties (Romans 13:1). The term hypotassesthai is difficult to translate; different ver-sions variously render it be subject, be obedient, be submissive, or be subor-dinate. It is most commonly assumed that the term simply means obedience.

C.E.B. Cranfields extensive study of this word in his commentary on Romans

12 and 13 shows that the usage of the word in literature and the examination of howearly Christian leaders interpreted and acted upon this injunction does not allowsuch an equation. The word Paul chose is not the best word to use if he meant anunambiguous obedience. Three other words commonly employed in the NewTestament to mean obedience are avoided in this passage. After surveying NewTestament usage, Cranfield wrote: Though the idea of obedience is sometimesclearly prominent (Romans 8:7), in the majority of cases, while it may be included,it is not clear that it predominates.

Obedience carries with it the idea of completely bending ones will and onesactions to the desires of another. Since obedience cannot be reciprocal, this connota-tion is excluded in some passages, such as Ephesians 5:22 where the word is used ofa reciprocal obligation (subject yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ).Failure to see the word in its complete context of reciprocity has caused serious

misunderstanding. For similar reasons, hypotassesthai is not best rendered by sub-jection, which carries a connotation of being thrown down and run over, nor bysubmission, with its connotation of passivity.

What then does the term mean? It appears most equitable with Romans 12:10(in honor preferring one another) and Philippians 2:3 (each counting the other

better than himself). The thrust of the word in the New Testament seems to be therecognition of the other persons standing in Gods plan. To submit to the state doesnot mean to adopt an uncritical and blind obedience to the authoritys everydemand, but to recognize the civil authority as part of Gods plan for the world andto responsibly act in the light of that recognition.

Cranfield summarizes: While it will often include obedience, it is never simplyobedience and nothing more, is never an uncritical and unquestioning obedience,and in some circumstances will not include obedience at all. That one can be sub-

missive even though not obeying is also argued by John Howard Yoder: The con-scientious objector who refuses to do what his government asks him to do, but stillremains under the sovereignty of that government and accepts the penalties which itimposes, or the Christian who refuses to worship Caesar but still permits Caesar to

put him to death, is being subordinate even though he is not obeying.Submission might normally entail obedience, but as Cranfield goes on to say, it

also involves a serious and responsible disobedience whenever obedience wouldinvolve disobeying God. Thus the same man who wrote submit yourselves for theLords sake to every human institution (1 Peter 2:13) had no problems with stand-ing before the authorities in Jerusalem and saying: whether it is right in the sight ofGod to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge (Acts 4:19). Wemust obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).


14/41



Pauls Viewof the State,

Part II(cont.)

Honor vs. fear. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to

whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor (Romans 13:7). Romans13:7 is perhaps the earliest commentary on Jesus words in Mark 12:17Render toCaesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods. The verbrender is the same in both contexts.

That which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God is not explicitlydefined in Mark 12, though it is certain that rendering to Caesar the things that areCaesars does not mean giving him everything he asks, and the arbiter of what

belongs to Caesar is not Caesar, but God. The context is very suggestive: Caesar isto be given back the coins stamped with his image; perhaps we are to give back toGod that which is stamped with Gods image, namely our whole lives.

Cranfield argues that the Romans 13 passage does explicitly define whatbelongs to Caesar and what belongs to Godtaxes, custom, and perhapshonor are due to Caesar, but fear is due only to God. He rejects the view that

reads this verse as a list of the four kinds of things due government: taxes, revenue,fear, and honor. If this latter view should be correct, it would certainly be unique,since nowhere else in the New Testament is there a general exhortation to fear thecivil authority (Romans 13:4 is addressed to the wrongdoer, not to men and womenin general).

Cranfields suggestion is more consistent with the parallel section in 1 Peter2:17Honor all people; love your fellow believers, fear God, honor the king.Here Peter altered Proverbs 24:21 (my child, fear the Lord and King) to avoidusing the same verb to indicate what is owed to the emperor and what is owed God.The Carthaginian Christian martyr Donata, asked to swear by the divine spirit ofthe Lord our Caesar, is said to have replied that she would honor Caesar as Caesar

but fear only God. This kind of distinction was probably a settled usage in theearly church.

Thus, proper honor for authorities is something quite different from the fearthat is to be given God alone. The system cannot threaten the Christian, not by with-holding its rewards, not even by death. It is precisely the inability of Nero to intimi-date the Christian that in turn makes all Christians a threat to Nero.

To honor those in authority means to take them seriouslyusually muchmore seriously than they take themselvesas the ministers of God, as individualsthus accountable to God for the solemn responsibility God has committed to them(see Cranfield). It is believed that Nero was emperor at the time Romans was writ-ten. For the recipients of the letter, honoring the king meant treating with full seri-ousness (for the sake of his office) a man who had little or no understanding of thetrue dignity of that office and who in himself was contemptible.

That to which honor is due is primarily the office and only secondarily theoccupant of the office. Honoring an official does not exclude critical words of

rebuke when the true dignity of the office is lost sight of. We have already seen thisin Pauls attitude toward the magistrates at Philippi in Acts 16. Jesus own behaviortoward Herod might be thought to indicate disrespect by those who misunderstandthe meaning of honor: he evaded Herod, sent him a message of contempt, andwhen face to face with him at his trial had nothing to say to him. In Luke 13:32 hecalled Herod a fox, a term used in contrast to a lion to indicate low cunning andan insignificant third-rate person, as opposed to a person of real power and great-ness.

The injunction render to all what is due them must not be understood as ren-der to the state everything asked. The contrast in the New Testament betweenfear and honor suggests that ethical discrimination is an essential element of

14

2


15/41




Part II(cont.)

honoring. Verse 8 confirms the discrimination implied in verse 7. In English we

do not note that the words what is due in verse 7 and owe in verse 8 have thesame root: render to each his due... nothing is due to anyone except love. Yoderwrites:The claims of Caesar are to be measured by whether what he claims is due to him is

part of the obligation of love. Love in turn is defined (v. 10) by the fact that it doesno harm. In this context, it therefore becomes impossible to maintain that the sub-

jection referred to in verses 1-7 can include a moral obligation under certain cir-cumstances to do harm to others at the behest of government.

Thus, it is not the Christians duty to give the state everything asked, or to do what-ever it says.

There is often the naive affirmation that whatever government does, it is servingGod and that therefore what it is doing is a ministry in which the Christian should

always share. Yoder challenges this understanding by examining in detail the latterpart of verse 6: For because of this you also pay taxes, for (rulers) are servants ofGod, devoting themselves to this very end. This latter phrase is taken by Yoder to

be more of a criterion than a description. Thus, he rejects the interpretation of theparticiple, devoting, as a further predication (rulers are servants of God anddevote themselves to this very thingi.e. that of promoting good and of restrainingevil in verses 3 and 4) and takes it as an adverbial modifier (rulers are servants ofGod only to the extent to which they devote themselves to this very thing).

The context of the next few verses makes it clear that the Christian is beingcalled to ethical discriminationperhaps this is to be the basis of that discrimina-tion. This verse gives a criterion by which the functioning of the state can be meas-ured. We can judge and measure the extent to which the state is accomplishing itsministry by asking whether it persistently attends to the rewarding of good and evil

according to their merits. Yoder concludes, The Christian who accepts his subjec-tion to government retains his moral independence and judgment. The authority ofgovernment is not self-justifying. Whatever government exists is ordered by God;

but the text does not say that whatever the government does or asks of its citizens isgood.

The powers. One last term should be briefly mentioned. The attitude of Paul towardthe state is seen in new theological depth and is placed in the context of his wholeideology when we consider the place of powers (exousiai, translated governingauthorities in verse 1) in his teaching. Many major commentators (Cullmann andCranfield are two) have argued that the powers of Romans 13:1 is a double refer-ence to civil authorities and also to the spiritual powers standing behind, and actingthrough, the civil authorities. Those who wish to follow this up can find an excellent

treatment of the issues in Cullmann, Cranfield, and Yoder. The value in making thisconnection between the state and the demonic powers standing behind the state isthat it helps account for the ambivalence of Pauls attitude in such passages as 1Corinthians 6. Cullmann writes:

Only in this way can we see in Pauline perspective the simultaneousness of the thor-oughly positive role of the State on the one hand, and its provisional, in the lastanalysis problematical, character on the other. This is roughly the simultaneousnessof Romans 13:1ff. and 1 Corinthians 6:lff. This apparently contradictory situationbelongs essentially to the victory over the angel powers, and it becomes graspable,

so to speak, in this point.

15

2


16/41




Part II(cont.)

By this understanding, Cullmann continues, it becomes especially clear that the

State is now a temporary institution, not of divine nature, but nevertheless willed byGod; that we must remain critical toward every state; that we must none the lessobey every state as far as it remains within its bounds.

The context. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist havebeen instituted by God (Romans 13:1). Both Cullmann and Yoder reject the viewthat Romans teaches the divine institution of a particular government, but eachargues differently. The ordaining of a particular government is what Yoder calls thepositivistic view held in certain Lutheran circles, that whatever governmentexists, it is by virtue of an act of institution, i.e. a specific providential action ofGod, that it came into being. Whatever government exists, it is the will of God.

Cullmann rejects this view and argues for the ordainingof theprinciple of gov-ernment. He argues that Pauls teaching on the state in Romans 13 arises out of the

context of the Christian commandment to love: The Christian is not to repay evil forevil (12:17) or to take their own vengeance (12:19), but the state legitimately takesvengeance on those who do evil (13:4). The Christians in Rome were perhaps dis-

paraging the government because it was not, indeed could not, operate out ofChristian principles. Paul was saying that because the state does properly the exactopposite of what the Christian is to do does not mean that the Christian is to reject itas a matter of principle. The state proceeds according to the principle not of love,

but of retribution and the Christian is not to reject it a priori because it representsother than Christian principles. The context thus shows that the only thing repudiat-ed in Romans 13 is the renunciation of the validity of the state as a matter of prin-ciple. The state is still necessary, Paul argues, and is fulfilling a needed place inGods plan.

Yoder likewise rejects the positivistic view but argues for another position:

the ordering of a particular government. There is a piling up of words containing theGreek root for order in the first two verses that is not readily apparent in theEnglish translations. Be subject, have been instituted, resists, and appointedare all based on the same root. Yoder argues that there is a difference betweenordain or institute and order. Thus the thought is: Be subordinate, becausethe state is ordered by God. Yoder remarks:

What the text says is that He orders them, brings them into line, that by his permis-sive government he lines them up with his purposes.... That God orders and usespowers does not reveal anything new about what government should be or how weshould respond to government. A given government is not mandated or saved ormade a channel of the will of God; it is simply lined up, used by God in his orderingof the cosmos.

The broad contextual grid for the entire ethical section of Romans 12-15 is given inthe first two verses: Put your bodies where your doctrines are, by the consistentworship that demands your very being as a living sacrifice, and stop allowing your-selves to be conformed and schematized by this world-system. Instead of beingsqueezed into its mold, have your minds transformed and keep letting yourselves bemetamorphosized by the renewal of your worldview and your moral disposition, sothat you may be able to discern, recognize, approve, and enjoy the will of God(Romans 12:1,2 free paraphrase).

Romans 13 is part of the practical outworking of the principles in Romans 12:1-2. There is a direct connection between cultural conformity and ethical insensitivity:be not conformed...so that you may discern the will of God. Accommodation to

16

2


17/41

2 17



the world-system and the adoption of its myths blunts the moral sensitivity of the

Christian.Perhaps the greatest cause of unbelief in our generation is the cultural conformi-

ty and consequent ethical insensitivity of the church. It is not the gospel that isincredible: the church is. The accommodated church cannot fulfill its proper politi-cal responsibility, because it must render to Caesar only that which belongs toCaesar, not that which belongs to God. And a conformed church can neither recog-nize nor approve of Gods will and that which belongs to God.

If the church is to recover its calling in the world, it must once again becomealien, pilgrim, propheta countercultural community of outsiders living out theirdiscipleship in a process of continual disentanglement from the values that dominatethis age, sensitive to those cultural blind spots that mold its thinking and shape itsactions to the standard that is passing away, proclaiming the great refusal to besqueezed into the worlds pattern, pledging allegiance to the coming reign of God.

Robert A. Sabath was an original member of the Sojourners community and is the Web site developeratSojourners. This article appeared in the April 1974 Post-American, the original name ofSojourners magazine.

Pauls Viewof the State,Part II(cont.)


18/41

2 18



WE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE...by Gerald W. Schlabach

In a time of crisis, uncertainty, and policy debate, one would think thatChristians in the United States would agree: When in doubt, we should supportour leader and remain loyal to our nation. Our leader, of course, is Jesus Christ.Our nation, of course, is the people called church, spread around the globe. Our

pledge of allegiance, of course, is one that can be sung from within every tribe andlanguage and people and nation (Revelations 5:9). Of course?

As the Bush administration prepares for war with Iraq, some matters certainlyare legitimate topics for debate and Christian discernment. Christians of good willmust discern which of the many competing messages about Iraq are coming to themin good faith, and which are manipulative. At its best, the centuries-long debate

between pacifist and just-war Christians can help deepen a shared commitment toconfront injustice and stand up for the defenseless. In turn, those who believe warscan sometimes be just are obliged to discern whether this war would qualify.Meanwhile, those resolved to respond first as Christians will continually wonderhow to live out Christian love of neighbor within overlapping roles such as employ-ee, passport-holder, family member, office holder.

Yet for all this, one thing should need no debate whatsoever. The first Christiancreed was the simple confession Jesus is Lord.Kyrios, lord, king, Caesarper-haps today we would say president. Biblically, to confess Jesus as Lord means thatin every nation except the church, whoever is known as king, Caesar, or president isnotreally our leader. Leaders of the nations deserve respect and prayer. Ordinarylaws and policies ordinarily deserve civil obedience, not disobedience. But if Jesusis Lord, no other leader deserves unquestioned support, muting of doubts, or stifling

of conscience. Every Christian must someday expect to obey God, not humanbeings.Biblically, this conviction is anything but isolated. It has roots in Israels faith

that Yahweh alone was their king. It extends throughout the New Testament, andbears fruit in the continuing witness of the church. Following Christs own death,the apostles invited Roman centurions to faith and appealed to Romes own sense ofitself as protector of justice. Yet they never forgot that they followed a lord whorivaled Caesar. Indeed, the New Testament closes with fresh and apocalyptically

poignant reminders that through martyrdom, Christians were sharing in Christsnonviolent war against the idolatrous claims of empire.

TO BE SURE, Romans 13 urged Christians living near the heart of the empire to besubject to governing authorities. They needed that reminder because they were

learning lessons like those in the previous chapter, Romans 12, just well enough thatimprudent, unprincipled resistance to authority could be a temptation. Those les-sons? Do not conform to the world but allow Gods grace to transform you into acontrast society; practice hospitality toward strangers, renounce vengeance, meetevil with good, order all your relationships peaceably. That God was at work placingthe worlds authorities in order was not a blank check for the state, but was simplyone more reflection of early Christian confidence that their lord, the crucified butrisen Christ, was the lord.

If Christians in the United States are confused about who our leader is andwhether we ought to close ranks in support of President Bush, that is probably

because we are also confused about our citizenship. If our first loyalty is to Christ,


19/41



We PledgeAllegiance

(cont.)

the appropriate way to express it is by identifying with the entire Body of Christ

the nation called church that spreads across borders and around the globe.The opportunity to relearn this lesson has never been greater. Whatever the neg-

atives of globalization, Christians plugged into its new networks of communicationhave no excuse for ignorance about how our actions affect fellow citizens in theworldwide household of faith. Iraqi Christians will die from bombs ostensibly tar-geted at the Saddam Hussein regime. Pakistani Christians are already under attack

because Christianity is identified with U.S. policies.The least that American Christians can do is factor in loyalty to fellow

Christians around the globe as we determine our stance toward leaders named Bush,Husseinand Jesus. But that is only a minimum. In the lead-up to the Novemberelections, one secular anti-war group coined the slogan, Regime change begins athomevote! Christians might better say something else: Regime change beginsat homeworship!

If we have forgotten why authentic worship must change the regime that guidesour lives, defines our true nationality, and then charts our international relationships,then we have forgotten the one we claim to worship as lord, president, unquestionedleader.

Gerald W. Schlabach was associate professor of theology at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesotawhen this article appeared in the January-February 2003 issue ofSojourners magazine.

19

2


20/41

SESSION 3Why Vote?

The Values of Voting, by Marie Dennis

The Miracle of South Africa, by Jim Wallis

Ivote because I am convinced it is worth the effort to try once again to insertmoral values into our political process, writes Marie Dennis. Even as sheacknowledges reasons for deep skepticism that our money-driven elec-

toral process will challenge the status quo, she expresses hope that an informed pub-lic can move politicians closer to social and economic justice. As Jim Wallis

describes, even the most profound change is often closer than it seems: SouthAfricas peaceful transition to post-apartheid democracy was a miracle that hadseemed unimaginable only a few years earlier.


1. Dennis argues that citizens of faith should seriously analyze how different politi-cal policies affect the poor, the environment, and human dignity. She suggestsasking who is the power behind the power, who benefits, [and] who carries theburden of different government actions. What do you prioritize when consider-ing your participation in the political process?

2. Dennis advocates for community discernment about political issues. At thesame time, she says that such discernment may lead to different decisions fordifferent people. Do you discuss politics with friends and in church? How arethese discussions helpful or how could they be?

3. Imagine being a member of the South African opposition who was imprisoned,exiled, or silenced, and later elected to South Africas post-apartheid parlia-ment? What ideals would you risk your life for? What seemingly stubborn polit-ical injustices exist in your country or community? How does the example ofSouth Africa give you hope and inspire solutions?

Resources

Call to Renewal offers public policy updates on legislation that affects the poor.This information can help you formulate the questions that are important to you as acitizen of faith (www.calltorenewal.com).

For more about South Africas continuing challenges, read In the Wake of aMiracle, by Linda Martindale (Sojourners, November-December 2003).



20

3


21/41

THE VALUES OF VOTINGby Marie Dennis

Periodically, the U.S. political scene is subjected to a ritual of readjustment atthe hands of eligible and willing voters. Our particular species of democracyrests enormous weight on the electoral process and has regularly made elec-tions the litmus test of a functioning democracy in other countries.

Many of us who are still waiting for this system of representative democracy tobirth liberty and justice for all recognize the complex layers of reality attached tothe voting process. We know very well that, in spite of repeated efforts at campaignreform and attempts at exacting a measure of ethical and social accountability fromelected officials, those who run for office almost by definition have to come fromamong the most privileged in our society, and rarely have life experience in any

measure like that of the majority in our land.We know too the tremendous influence of money before, during, and after elec-

tion day. While the United States has witnessed little overt fraud in the ballotingprocess, political power here is manipulated and controlled in more subtle andequally effective ways. Some of us harbor a deep skepticism about the capacity ofour system to produce elected officials willing to make decisions independent ofspecial interests. Then why do some people choose to vote?

Perhaps it is an affirmation of the possibility of redemption. Perhaps it is anabiding belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity. Perhaps we are trying toclaim whatever measure of value and justice remains in our political tradition.Perhaps it is hope or foolishness or a willingness to risk disappointment once again,or an unwillingness to risk at all.

From time to time, we say, we have heard truth spoken in high places and have

seen the consequences. Occasionally our hearts have risen to the witness of a vision-ary in office. Some of us remember the pain of exclusion from the voting processand the long hard struggle to crack open that door.

Two experiences of my own keep me moving toward the ballot box, howeverreluctantly:

In Haiti (1990) and Mexico (1994) I served as an election observer. In thoseplaces, especially in Haiti, I witnessed a people surmount obstaclesilliteracy, dis-tance and impossible transportation, corruption, and threatened violenceto expresstheir opinion. I saw extremely poor people, determined to participate in decisionsthat would affect their lives, manage the polling process with amazing fortitude andskill. I saw a jubilant people work their will, even for a time, on the powers that be.I saw the people of Haiti elect Jean Bertrand Aristide to serve as their president

against the will of the United States, brutal security forces, an intransigent and pow-erful elite, and the church.

Here at home, as a resident of Washington, D.C., I have experienced the frustra-tion of having no representation in a Congress bent on abandoning the poor. I haveanticipated the impact of dreadful decisions in my own already impoverished neigh-

borhood, a stones throw from the Capitol and the White House, and had no officialpower to stay their hand. I am tired of false, vindictive accusations being leveledagainst the people I love.

WHY, THEN, DO I vote? I vote because too many people cant. I vote because toomuch power is already concentrated in the hands of unaccountable people. I vote



21

3


22/41

because I am convinced it is worth the effort to try once again to insert moral values

into our political process. I vote because I cling to the belief that honest representa-tion is possible; that significant changes toward justice in our national, state, andlocal affairs can be blocked by a few powerful people; that we can articulate a plat-form based on the common good, cognizant of what impact various policy proposalshave in the lives of the most vulnerable in our midst and around the world.

WHETHER TO VOTE is the first question.How to vote is the next. What and whowill guide this decision?

The first answer to this last question is community, a place for honest dia-logueoften across differencesthat can help us understand the issues and evalu-ate the various choices. In our individualistic society, important and complex deci-sions are too often made without sufficient deliberation. Community discernment,though it may lead to different decisions for different people, can lessen our vulner-

ability to the rhetoric of political discourse and the harangue of biased talk-showhosts.

Beyond communal conversation, our decisions will be guided by another ele-ment too often lost to the U.S. publicserious social and political analysis. Whileour educational system has often built skills for mathematical, scientific, literary, orlinguistic analysis, we are largely ignorant of the processes necessary for socialanalysis. Yet, as people of the gospel, we are called to faithfulness in this regard.

Every proposal, policy, or political platform should be measured by how it touchesthe human person; whether it enhances or diminishes human life, human dignity,and human rights; and how it advances the common good.fromPolitical

Responsibility, by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

We cannot support candidates who would exclude the poor from their rights inour society. We cannot support policies that would further damage the rest of cre-ation. We cannot vote for a platform that perpetuates racism or sexism, that exacer-

bates the increasing maldistribution of wealth. Before we vote, we must ask funda-mental questions about who participates, who holds power, who is the power behindthe power, who benefits, who carries the burden. We have to know the issues atstake in our society and look for the proposals that nurture life.

If we believe in social and economic justice; in the fundamental right of all to adignified life where the personal and the public support and enhance each other; andin the responsibility of the human family to honor the rest of creation, perhaps wecan support those candidates who, with all their flaws, will at least move us in thatdirection.

OUR RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS can help us identify the values we seek. Forexample, the twin principles of solidarity and subsidiarity offer guidance to the nec-essary task of blending personal and social, communal and government, public and

private responsibility for shaping the common good. Solidarity is that characteristicwhich reminds us of our intrinsic interconnection as family to all other human

beings and to the rest of creationand of the responsibility that creates for theircare.

Subsidiarity locates decisions and programs, functions of government, as closeto the people as possible (local is better), unless the local community cannot or willnot fulfill its responsibility to the common good. We are simultaneously uniqueindividuals and members of a community; important members of families variouslydescribed and citizens of a large and powerful nation-state; people profoundly con-



The Valuesof Voting

(cont.)

22

3


23/41

cerned about the neighborhoods and the world in which we live. Each of these iden-

tities must be brought to bear on the political decisions we make.Many pathways are open to the Christian community intent on fidelity in the

public arena. One of those may lead to the voting booth. If so, discernment in com-munity about candidates and their proposals, careful identification of key issues andanalysis of the impact of various proposals on the most marginal communities, andthe application of fundamental life values to probe the rhetoric on the campaign trailmay serve us well.

MARIE DENNIS was the associate for Latin America in the Maryknoll Justice and Peace Office and amember of Assisi Community in Washington, D.C., when this article appeared in the May-June 1996issue ofSojourners magazine.



The Valuesof Voting

(cont.)

23

3


24/41

3 24

THE MIRACLE OF SOUTH AFRICAby Jim Wallis

The miraculous events in South Africa that surrounded the overthrow ofapartheid made hope possible for me again. I was there for the transforma-tionthe inauguration of a new South Africaand will never be the same.

Never again can I say that hope is not a concrete reality. Never again can Isay that anything is impossible.

The people of South Africa have opened the way for the rest of us to believe.Having been through the hard times with the South African people, I wanted

now to be there for the celebration. Still bleary-eyed after a 14-hour flight toJohannesburg, I arrived at the famous FNB stadium in Soweto for what was billedas a National Service of Thanksgiving just two days before Nelson Mandelas

inauguration as the first democratically elected president of South Africa. BrigaliaBam of the South African Council of Churches welcomed the joyous crowd on thissun-drenched afternoon by describing the recent events in her country as a mira-cle. I would hear that word over and over again in the extraordinary days that fol-lowed.

The FNB stadium has been the site of recent memorial services for murderedAfrican National Congress leader Chris Hani and the ANCs revered former presi-dent, Oliver Tambo, as well as countless other funerals over the years. At Hanisfuneral, a speaker lamented, We have become accustomed to coming here to shareour grief. May this be the last time we come to express only our sorrow. When willwe come to share our joy?

This was that day. The black township pastor sitting next to me called it a dayof celebration and release. New hope was now bursting forth all around the stadi-

um under the bright blue South African sky.

THE ENORMOUS CONTRAST between the old South Africa and the new nation Iwas watching be born was almost overwhelming. I was here previously for almostsix weeks during 1988. All of the freedom movements political leaders and organi-zations had been imprisoned, exiled, banned, silenced, or killed.

Courageous church leaders like Desmond Tutu, Frank Chikane, Allan Boesak,and Beyers Naud had risen up to fill the vacuum and the white government wascracking down on those churches and church leaders who dared to oppose apartheid.We had to be snuck into the country after being invited to offer support and to bringout the story of the churchs resistance.

That visit was a time of both great fear and stubborn hope among the people ofSouth Africa. The prospects for change looked extremely dismal, the cost of resist-

ance was very high, and the possibility of South Africa ever being free appearedpainfully remote. The ominous presence of the police and military dominated every-thing.

The simplest everyday activities were fraught with tension; all of human lifeseemed to be under constant siege for the majority of South Africas people. I wasconstantly amazed at the spirit of determination I found, despite the predictions ofalmost everyone else around the world that a free South Africa was a vain and dis-tant hope.

Most expected an eventual bloodbath in that tragic land. Even in the days lead-ing up to the April 1994 elections, many feared massive violence and a plunge intocivil war. The amazing sight of peaceful, patient voting lines of black and whiteSouth Africans together ending apartheid seemed utterly unrealistic just a short time




25/41

ago. But as someone commented to me during this trip to South Africa, Oppressed

people cannot afford to be realistic.Now, a stadium of people who had just voted for a political transformation rose

to pray together and give thanks for their miracle:

O God, our loving Eternal Parent, we praise you with a great shout of joy! Your rul-ing power has proved victorious! For centuries our land seemed too dark for sun-rise, too bloody for healing, too sick for recovery, too hateful for reconciliation. But

you have brought us into the daylight of liberation; you have healed us with newhope; you have stirred us to believe our nation can be reborn; we see the eyes ofour sisters and brothers shining with resolve to build a new South Africa. Acceptour prayers of thanksgiving.

Leaders of formerly divided races and churches formed a circle around a rough-

hewn wooden cross for a liturgy of reconciliation. In turn, each read a portion of anew commitment to one another and to a new South Africa. The entire congregationthen affirmed, We are all Africans. We commit ourselves to discover an Africansolution, under God.

Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu concluded, with unrestrained joy, Weused to say, We will be freeblack and white together. Today we say, We are therainbow people of God! We are free!

At that moment, the peace was sharedacross the borders of more than 300years of enmity in South Africa. There were great smiles, joyous embraces, vigoroushandshakes, long and tearful hugs, until the whole stadium finally erupted in singingand dancing. In his sermon, a Methodist bishop and former political prisoner onRobben Island said, Our beloved country cries no longer.

President-elect Mandela rose to speak. He asked us to remember those who

would have liked to have been here today but could not. The emotion in the stadi-um was easily felt as we recalled those who had died in the long struggle for free-dom.

For 46 years the people of South Africa had lived under the most brutal formsof racial oppression in the system of apartheid, Mandela told the crowd.

Nothing I can say can fully describe the misery of our people as a result of thatoppression, but the day we have been fighting for and waiting for has come. We are

saying, Let us forget the past, let us hold hands, it is time now to begin anew. Thetime has come for men and women, African, colored, Indian, white, Afrikaans and

English-speaking, to say we are one country, we are one people.

Over and over, during these historic days, the truth about the past was toldthen

the past was forgiven. The words of forgiveness and reconciliation were heard fromMandela and the former president F.W. de Klerk, from the ANC to the NationalParty and even the Inkatha Freedom Party, from white suburbanites to black town-ship youth.

But Mandela set the tone. He invited his former jailers to be special guests athis inauguration, and he invited his opponents into the new government. He calledon militant young people from angry townships to learn the words to the Afrikanernational anthem Die Stem (The Call of South Africa) and challenged whites tolearn the African national anthem Nkosi Sikelel i Africa (God Bless Africa)both of which are the new national anthems of South Africa.



The Miracleof South

Africa(cont.)

25

3


26/41

ON MONDAY, MAY 9, in Cape Town, former political prisoners were sworn in as

new Members of Parliament (MPs). I spent the night before the ceremony in theviolence-torn township of Guguletu with the family of Phumzile Ngcuka Mlambo,one of the ANCs new MPs. She and her husband, Bulelani, still in their 30s, arelongtime community activists. Both have been imprisoned and tortured, but theyembody the hopeful spirit of the new South Africa. The whole family was veryexcited that night, anticipating the next days events.

Ive never been beyond the gate of Parliament before, Phumzile said. Andwhenever I went, there were always dogs and I was always in trouble. Now every-one smiles at me; its all very strange. Barney Pityana, an old friend and formerassociate of Steve Biko, came by and we all excitedly talked together, into the night,about the elections and the new political possibilities. Hope pulsated around theroom. See, said Phumzile to her American friends, dont give up on humanity!

The next morning, Phumzile and Bulelani invited another American, Jean

Sindab, and myself to go with them. At the huge fortified gate of the South AfricanParliamenta dramatic symbol of the closed system of apartheidpolice quicklycame to our car. Bulelani rolled down his window and confidently announced,Member of Parliament! Like a miracle, the gate of the old swung open and wedrove right through into the new.

Inside, we stood together on the Parliament steps as new leaders ascended intothe building to take their places. Thabo Mbeki, in exile since he was a small boy,now one of the two new deputy presidents, walked up the stairs, as did Joe Slovo,the ANC elder statesman whose wife, Ruth First, was blown up several years ago bya letter bomb.

Were you always hopeful? the press asked Slovo. Not always, replied theSouth African Communist Party member. Sometimes you would ask, How long, ohLord?

Many of these former freedom fighters obviously could still hardly believe thiswas happening. More than one person said they were half expecting to wake up andtell everyone about the wonderful dream they had.

The happiest archbishop in the world arrived. Desmond Tutu told the press, Itsa transfigurationthis country has gone through an incredible transfiguration.Victory is oursall of ours, black and white, all of ours...Hoo Hah!

In simple, solemn, and moving ceremony, the new president, his deputies, andthe Members of Parliament from all South Africas races and parties took their oathof office and pledged their loyalty to the new South Africa. Albertina Sisulu, called

by many the mother of the movement and now a new MP, was chosen for thehonor of officially nominating Nelson Mandela for president. Eighty women in allwere installed in a Parliament of 400, including Frene Ginwala as speaker.

Afterward, President Mandela, and the two deputy presidents, Mbeki and F.W.

de Klerk, emerged from the Parliament building to meet the press and stand togetherfor a historic photo. Even the media stood quietly in respectful tribute as the bandplayed both national anthems. No one said a word; there were more than a few tearsas we watched the emotion-filled faces of the three political leaders who will shapea new South African nation.

When the band finished playing Nkosi Sikelel i Africa, a lone voice shoutedthe traditional call,Amandla (Power), to which the crowd responded,Awethu (Tothe people). Mandela smiled, and another person began to sing We HaveOvercome.

One hundred thousand people were gathered at the Grand Parade to hearMandela speak. This was the first place he had spoken to the people of South Africaon February 11, 1990, after being released from 27 years in prison. When Mandela



The Miracleof South

Africa(cont.)

26

3


27/41

now appeared on the balcony of the city hall, as president of a democratic South

Africa, a mighty roar went up.The people of South Africa have spoken in this election, said Mandela. They

want changeand change they will get. The 75-year-old leader continued a themeof reconciliation: We speak not as conquerors, but as fellow citizens seeking toheal the wounds of the past. In a dramatic gesture, Mandela released a flock of

beautiful white doves into the cloudless sky, to the delight of the masses below. In aland known for blood and death, peace had come to South Africa.

I SPOKE WITH Archbishop Tutu on the flight back to Johannesburg that afternoon.After serving as master of ceremonies for the city hall event, he was still moreexcited than tired. The next day, he would say a prayer for the nation at the inaugu-ration. Incredible, he kept repeating.

I reminded him of what he said to the South African rulers just six years before,

in a packed St. Georges Cathedral: You may be powerful, indeed, very powerful.But you are not God. You are ordinary mortals! Godthe God whom we worshipcannot be mocked. You have already lost.... We are inviting you to come and jointhe winning side. Finally they decided to do so, and most South African whitesseemed happy about it. Today was the vindication of faith and hope, the demonstra-tion that both, in the end, are stronger than political power.

Archbishop Tutu expressed gratitude for the long support by the overseasfriends of South African freedom and said this was our day too. The South Africanmiracle has the real potential to infuse hope into every other struggle for freedom,

justice, and peace throughout the world. In an irony of history, the nation that wasonce the worlds pariah now has the potential to provide the models the world mostneeds.

On Tuesday, May 10, 1994, more heads of state than had been together at any

time since the funeral of John F. Kennedy came to Pretoria for the inauguration ofMandela. But they were not the real story. Thousands upon thousands of SouthAfricans of all races, classes, and agesmen, women, and childrenfilled the greatlawns of the historic Union Building, while the whole nation watched and a billionothers joined them from around the world. Today the government of South Africatook on the many colors of the nation itself.

Never have I seen such a large crowd so incredibly orderly, dignified, disci-plined, cooperative, graceful, and united; never have I been with so many happy andjoyous people. When the crowd wanted to stand up, we all stood up togethertoclap, sing, or dance. When people were ready to sit down, we allsat down. Despitethe hot autumn sun, the huge audience never lost its enthusiasm. A thousand SouthAfrican artists were on hand to lead the people in the most gala celebration thiscountry had ever seen.

A giant television screen gave the assembled multitude a close-up view of allthe proceedings. As the national anthems were played and the oath of office taken,Mandelas face, projected on the huge screen, captured my attention. His is a facecarved by discipline and solitude. I could see the memories of the struggle in hiseyes, the pain of fallen comrades not here for this moment. His expression showedquiet determination and dignity, vindication and humility, gladness and seriousrecognition of the vast leadership responsibilities that lie ahead. It was the strongestyet gentlest face I have ever seen, a face you would instinctively trust.

Mandelas inaugural address was a rainbow covenant of promises to his peo-ple. We enter into a covenant that we shall build a society in which all SouthAfricans, both black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in theirhearts, assured of their inalienable right to human dignitya rainbow nation at



The Miracleof South

Africa(cont.)

27

3


28/41

peace with itself and the world. Mandela vowed that never, never, and never again

shall it be that this beautiful land will experience the oppression of one by another.In a ringing appeal for reconciliation, he proclaimed, The time for healing of

the wounds has come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come.The time to rebuild is upon us.

The next day in Soweto, Frank Chikane, former general secretary of the SouthAfrican Council of Churches, told me, What happened is a miracle, and can only

be sustained as a miracle. The conversation has already begun about the enormouschallenges the new South Africa faces and about what the prophetic role of thechurch must be. But this was a week for celebration. As long as I live, I will neverforget the feeling of standing with thousands of celebrating South African people,listening to the words of Mandela. With tears and joy we heard Mandela proclaim,We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of millions of our

people.

Who would have thought that the people of South Africa would teach the worldthe power of hope? It is that power which has the capacity to transform us all.

Jim Wallis is the editor-in-chief ofSojourners magazine. This article appeared in the July 1994 issue ofSojourners.



The Miracleof South

Africa(cont.)

28

3


29/41



SESSION 4Religion in Public Office

The Courage of Conviction, an interview with Mark O. Hatfield

Dangerous Religion: George W. Bushs Theology of Empire,

by Jim Wallis

Mark Hatfield, then a Republican senator from Oregon (and an evangelicalChristian), argues that faith must affect politicsas his faith led him tooppose the Vietnam War, nuclear escalation, and povertybut that politi-

cians must never claim Gods sanction, and that political positions must never be

elevated to the status of religious creeds. In contrast, as Jim Wallis argues, PresidentGeorge W. Bush seems to invoke a divine blessing on his presidency, and Americasposition of power, as part of a divine plan.


1. Its my view that you commit your life to the Lord and not try to have yourviews ratified by the Lord, says Hatfield. In what ways does the Bush adminis-trations language differ from, or conform to, this principle? What are the chal-lenges of trying to follow Hatfields view, in politics or elsewhere in life?

2. Hatfield argues that no political agenda should ever be presented as a substitutefor the biblical gospel, and that this is what the Religious RightandReligious Leftsometimes does, to the detriment of the cause of Christ. Howhave you wrestled with this in your own life? Are there faith communities that

you belong to that assume a particular political adherence? How can you makeyour faith the basis of your politics without claiming that all faithful peoplemust agree with your politics?

3. Wallis argues that President Bush has made a transition from self-help Methodistto messianic Calvinist convinced that America can rid the world of evilabelief that Wallis calls bad foreign policy [and] bad theology. How shouldpeople of faith respond to Bushs mandate to use government to rid the worldof evil? How is this understood in light of Robert Sabaths Bible study on Pauland the state?

4. Hatfield says that he was able to be faithful to God in public office, in part,because his constituency in Oregon was willing to re-elect someone who votedhis conscience. What could you do to encourage this kind of behavior in more

elected public officials?

Resources

Mark Hatfield offers first-person thoughts on faith and government in ConfessingChrist and Doing Politics, by Mark Hatfield (Center for Public Justice, 1982). Hisautobiography tells the powerful story of his journey as a politician of faith:Againstthe Grain: Reflections of a Rebel Republican, by Mark O. Hatfield and Diane N.Solomon (White Cloud Press, 2000).

For more discussion on God, politics, and the American experiment see JimWallis interview with syndicated columnist, practicing Catholic, and think-tank fel-low E.J. Dionne in Our Lady of the 501(c)3 (Sojourners, March-April 2000).

29

4


30/41



THE COURAGE OF CONVICTIONAn interview with Mark Hatfield, by Jim Wallis

After reading the first issue ofSojourners precursorThe Post-American in1971, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield wrote to the editors, I believe you may behelping to ignite a new movement of the Spirit in our land. Hatfield, anevangelical Christian and a Republican from Oregon, has remained a

friend (and served as contributing editor) ofSojournerssince that introduction.Sojourners editor Jim Wallis interviewed Hatfield at his Senate office in Washington,

D.C., in July 1996, a few months after Hatfield announced that he would not runagain.

Jim Wallis: Its hard to believe, in some w

christians & politics

Documents