The Declaration as a Covenant With God

Over the past few months I have been posting brief discussions on various viewpoints Zambians hold on the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation. As I have written these posts I have become aware that once I am done looking at the various viewpoints on the declaration, I will need to discuss the separation of church and Christian influence in a pluralistic society. Prayerfully I will be able to do this by January.

This post will look at the declaration as a covenant with God. According to this view point if Zambia as a nation through a political act identifies itself with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob then the nation will receive divine blessings spiritually and materially. In Zambia at least there is no systematic theology supporting this viewpoint, but advocates of this viewpoint typically cite 2 Chronicles 7:14, “if My people who are called by my name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land”, as the basis of their belief. Now I realize to some the distinction between the declaration as an act of faith and the declaration as a covenant may not be clear so I will try and make a distinction here. The declaration as an act of faith is an action that moves God to act on behalf of Zambia and the declaration as a covenant is an action that creates a unique relationship between God and the nation, in effect God is King over the nation in a way his is not king over secular states.

Before I go into my usual brief evaluation I will talk about how the viewpoint evolved in the Zambian context.

For the first twenty seven years of Zambia’s existence, the nation was ruled by Kenneth David Kaunda. Kenneth Kaunda the son of a missionary ruled in accordance with a political ideology he called humanism. This ideology was a mixture of African social beliefs, socialism, beliefs on the equality of all people and his own belief that purpose of all social institutions is to serve man. President Kaunda was a professing Christian and for many years he interacted with the Church relatively well. During this time the presidents religious beliefs seemed to be ecumenical and centered around the simple belief that “Christ is my savior”. Over the years however, the President began to publically entertain certain eastern religious beliefs. This pattern came to a head in 1990 when the President invited the Maharishi Heaven on Earth group to Zambia to “help” the nation transform. The president gave these people a centre near State House to operate from and expressed his intention to provide state support to help this group propagate their beliefs.

Politically, this could not have been a worse move for the president. The nation was in economic crisis and many were calling for a political change to deal with the crisis. When the President invited the Maharishi group many in the Christian community joined forces with the movement for change to deal with the presidents new spiritual direction. As providence would have it in 1991 there was regime change and Fredrick Titus Chiluba was elected as Zambia’s second republican president.

Frederick Chiluba was a trade unionist and a Charismatic Christian and in no time at all the nation learned that his religious beliefs would have an influence on his presidency. The man opened meetings in prayer, quoted the Bible constantly and seemed to give Christian (as well as secular) justification for his actions. According to some newspapers when the new president moved to statehouse he even arranged for special prayers to deal this the demons that may have taken residence there during the reign of Kenneth Kaunda. This Christianizing process came its climax when the president appeared outside statehouse and performed a covenanting ceremony by one of statehouses pillars and declared Zambia a Christian nation.

So that’s it that is the background to the original declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation. So what do I make of this all? Well theologically I believe that this viewpoint is incorrect. Firstly, when any human party enters into a covenant with God, God is the initiator and not the human party. In the case of Zambia we see Zambia through its president initiating a covenant with God. This is incorrect and is against the Biblical standard.

Secondly, the so called Biblical grounds for the declaration are specific promises to the nation of Israel. I believe that it would be wrong for any nation to lay hold of any of these promises for the following reasons:

“The Difference between Israel and other Kingdoms was that Israel was in covenant with the true God. So it had instructions and civil laws appropriate to its uniqueness. Its temple, priesthood, feasts, and sacrificial system anticipated the coming of Christ to redeem God’s people from sin. But the majority of Israel rejected Jesus. So they lost their special status with God.

But the people of God continued in a new form. The Church, composed of Jews and Gentiles (with, of course, their families) as equal members of one body, was “the Israel of God” (Gal.6.16). The olive tree of Abraham continued, but with some old (Jewish) branches broken off and some new Gentile branches grafted in (Rom. 11:11-24). The Church received the titles of Israel….

No modern nation, or its Government (state), then, will ever play the distinctive role filled by old testament Israel….Modern nations continue to act as God’s servants to maintain justice and order. But believing nations, if such there be, will not play the distinctive role of Israel, and neither will their Governments. These states need not take Israel’s distinctive purposes into account as they rule.”

P599 John Frame, “The Doctrine of the Christian Life” P&R Publishing

For these reasons I believe only the church, not any political entity, can lay hold of the promises of God to Israel.