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.

The Declaration as an Act of Faith

During the recent National Constitutional Conference it was evident that a lot of Christians felt vey strongly about the declaration of Zambia as a Christian nation. You might recall that as the conference considered whether Zambia ought to be declared a Christian nation several Christians groups staged several public demonstrations in support of declaration of Zambia as a Christian. The emotional fervour that Characterised these events made it clear that to these people the declaration was more than a matter of political prudence to them, it was an action with deep theological meaning.

During this time I had a number of conversations with various Christians on the matter and became aware that many people believed that the act of declaring the nation a Christian nation would make the nation a Christian nation. In other words the political act of declaring Zambia a Christian nation would have spiritual results; making Jesus the Lord of the Hearts of the people of Zambia.

Why do these people believe this? On the basis of passages like Mark 11:22-23 (‘And Jesus answering them saith unto them, have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, that whsoever saith unto this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith’) and Numbers 14:28(‘...saith the Lord, as you have spoken in my ears, so will I do’) they believe that if their faith, symbolised by the declaration, will make Zambia a Christian nation.

It goes without saying that non Christians will hate this and say that it is essentially a group of people using both political and spiritual power to make them what they are not. The question still remains, is there a Christian objection to this? I believe there is.

I believe that the Bible has outlined how we are to make people Christian:
‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen’ Mathew 28:19,20.

On this basis I believe that while my fellow Christians are well intentioned they have not chosen a Biblical means of perusing their goal. Instead of making political statements we ought to participate in and support intensified evangelistic effort. It is only when we do this that Zambia w

The Declaration as a Moral Statement

A very long time ago now, I started a series of articles to examine various aspects of the declaration of Zambia a Christian nation. As you may have noticed, things have not gone as planned but, I can at least say that the next two posts are ready. So I am pretty sure that by the end of September I will finally be done and ready to finish the other series on sex education. Then prayerfully I will look at some issues in economics and finance. God willing that is.

So what is the declaration as a moral statement about? Two things, the first an announcement that in Zambia people are to adhere to the moral standards of the Bible and that the state will back the enforcement of these moral standards.

So what are the objections to this? In this case I use an objectors own words to express the negatives, when Christians use political power to legislate thier values they are acting as tyrants.

What about the pros? I believe that every society is free to organize itself according to the principles that it chooses. Because of the fact that one hundred percent consensus is not possible the will of the majority is used as a substitute. If the majority of a society decides to make Christian standards law, I believe that they are within their rights.

I however, have a difficulty with branding such civil action as Christian, such action is not mandated by the Bible and calling such action Christian gives the impression that the action is mandated by the Christian religion which it is not. I think this is a problem with regards to personal witness as those we are witnessing to may get the mistaken impression that Christian religion believes in advancing its interests by coercion.

Brief I know but it is a single blog post perhaps through the comments we can advance the discussion.

The Declaration as a Means of Preventing Social Change

As I have been writing these posts I have tried to deal with each of these issues briefly. Being a social scientist there was a temptation to look at this academically and in depth. Being a Christian with some interest in theology I was also tempted to do a full theological discussion of the issue. I did not take either route because the preparation of those papers would take way too long. I instead opted for my current approach, of briefly introducing each dimension, briefly looking at the main pros and cons and advancing the discussion through the comments. I hope you have found the series helpful so far.

The perspective on the declaration of Zambia as tool in a Zambia’s current cultural battle. Just in case you do not live in Zambia let me tell about these battles briefly. In Zambia, cultural conservatives, mostly older Zambian’s oppose the cultural changes being seen in urban Zambia. These changes include the priority of the nuclear family over the extended family, sexually suggestive dressing, perceived increase in sexual promiscuity and the disuse of local languages. The cultural conservatives argue that younger urban Zambian’s should have pride in their culture and oppose the westernization of Zambia. So how does this become a Christian issue? A lot of the cultural conservatives are professing Christians (sorry Chola) and see an overlap between Christian interests and the interests of the cultural conservative. They believe that the declaration can be a means of opposing western ideas that undermine Christian and conservative cultural values. An example of such an idea is the tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality.

So is there anything negative about this strategy? Well once again I would argue that using this strategy would give the impression that the Christian faith advances its agenda through political means. However, we know that Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world and its interests are not advanced by political means. Rather Christ advances his holy nation through the proclamation of the word of God. In light of this the Church’s legitimate response to anti Christian is to preach the gospel.

This is however, not to say that Christians in their individual capacity can not use political means to oppose anti Christian developments in Zambia.

Zambia the Christian Nation Pt 1

Few things have stirred the emotions of Zambian Christians to the extent that the Declaration of Zambia as a Christian Nation has. Many Christian's are enthusiastically in support of the declaration and have passionately campaigned for its inclusion in the draft Constitution. A few have been more reserved in their support of the declaration and have queried it from theological and civil perspectives.

During the debates over the declaration it has emerged that the understanding of what the declaration means and what its implications are vary from person to person and from group to group. In today's post I will briefly outline five understandings of the declaration and discuss each understanding in greater detail in future posts.

The Declaration as a Sociological Statement

This understanding of the declaration holds that a majority of Zambians are Christians and the nations Constitution should therefore identify Zambia as a country that is predominately Christian.

The Declaration as a Policy Direction Statement

This understanding builds on the previous understanding and goes further to argue that because the majority of Zambians are Christians Zambia's public policies should be based upon and compatible with Christian values.

The Declaration as a Moral Statement

This understanding also builds on the first and goes on to argue that the morals of the people of Zambia should be in line with the Bible.

The Declaration as a Covenant With God

This understanding looks at the declaration as a covenant or contract with God. According to this understanding, the Zambian people have pledged allegiance to Yahweh and he will bless our nation because of our pledge of allegiance.

The Declaration as an Act of Faith

In understanding is a variation on the last. According to this understanding our faith creates reality and if we declare Zambia to be a Christian nation then by faith it will be a Christian nation. According to this understanding the reverse is also true, if we say that Zambia is not a Christian nation then because of our belief Zambia will not be a Christian nation.

The Declaration as a Tool to Prevent Social Change

The last understanding of the declaration (at least as far as I can tell) is that the declaration is a tool to maintain the current social status quo. Those who hold this understanding believe that the foreign elements in our society who are actively trying to introduce anti Christan cultural elements to our society such as homosexuality. Adherents of this position believe that if the Constitution declares Zambia a Christian nation, the declaration can be used as a basis for criminalising or at least discouraging the activities of these elements.

Okay, those are the understandings that I have picked upon on. Over the next few weeks I intend to examine each of these from a Biblical and civil view point to see if the understandings hold water. I would appreciate your input on this at any stage.