Christianity is a historical religion, and this piece is grounded in the primary lesson of history, hence the need for a brief historical analysis of the key facts from church history. 

The story of Christianity shows that it is possible “to read the Bible as a textbook on the pathology of religion giving rise to hypocrisy, idolatry, group egotism and collective blindness” (Villa-Vicencio 1986, XV). 

On the other hand, the Bible can be read as a therapeutic text overcoming the melodies of society by being a source of political renewal (Baum 1975, 62-84). 

The Christian church has always played an ambiguous socio-political role throughout its history. In some cases, it has blessed and legitimated the state (post-Constantine era) while at other times, the church has rejected the status quo by affirming the reign of God and calling for social justice against political evils of the state.

The first Christians were uncompromisingly confrontational with regard to the secular order. They believed the state was ungodly while on the other hand the state also viewed Christians as being on a deadly collision course with the Roman Empire’ (Hastings 1926,208). 

The writings of Tacitus (60-120), as preserved in documents of the Christian Church (Bettenwon 1964,1-6), show that the early church was uncompromising in the mission. 

The case of Bishop Polycorp, a Christian martyr who took a clear stance against the evil systems of the Roman Empire justified the theology of the early church when he said: “Spiritual authority impinged on the political realm in both judgement and renewal.”

The post-Constantine era (312AD) allowed the church to be an ally of the state; emperors became the compatriots of the bishops. “In the same spirit the sovereign autocrat was inevitably and immediately involved in the development of the church, and conversely the church became more and more implicated in high political decisions” (Chadwick 1988, 125). 

The emperors saw Christianity as a means of promoting social stability for the common good of the empire. During the medieval era, St. Augustine’s imperial theology promoted a critical solidarity between church and state, hence he could argue that at times the church has to say no and at times yes to state ideologies (Brown 1969, 289). Augustine argued that it was the obligation of the Christian to bring the state into order because Christians are “an assembly of reasonable beings in agreement to the objects of their love” (St. Augustine, Civitas Dei, XiX,24). Augustine operated on the level of a thin trajectory because he believed that even though the church was superior to the state, the state was also obliged to help the cause of the church whenever it mattered most. Clearly, such thinking has some parallels in Namibia today.

The 16th century Reformers also sought to maintain rapport between the church and the state, hence Martin Luther argued that “God had ordained two governments: the spiritual by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians and  righteous people under Christ; and the temporary, which restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that – no thanks to them – they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace” (Villa-Vicencio 1986,50). 

In the same vein, John Calvin argued that people must obey the law but they also must be mindful that God is higher than the human law. (Mc Neill 1965,31-32). In the mind of Calvin, it is clear that the church is meant to be the final arbiter for peace in the world, where sin and evil seek to destroy that which is good.

The modern church is characterised by powerful justice-conscious movements within the established denominations. 

These movements have prompted popular pastoral declarations and affirmations which have become the rallying point of the social renewal spirit in church circles. 

The Barmen Declaration (1934) is one such statement during the Nazism crisis. The declaration rejected the established church agenda by refusing to theologically absolutize a particular political programme.

Bonhoeffer was inspired by the Barmen Declaration and “acted as a responsible and brave man” (De Gruchy 1984,16). Bonhoeffer (1993) defended the weak and the poor by attempting to affirm God’s love and justice in the context of political and social evils. 

This is a good lesson regarding the meaning and cost of discipleship, emphasising there is no neutral ground for the church when it comes to matters of faith and justice.

In South-African history, the Kairos Document (1985) in ancient Greek means reign or opportune moment – it was the high point of active participation in the socio-political arena by individual Christians. 

The Kairos Document deplored the apartheid system as an evil crisis which impinged on God’s justice for all creation. The lessons from Kairos and other conferences are enough to inspire Namibian churches to act as the salt and light of the nation in the search for peace and justice for all.  I am constantly reminded of the work of Father Trevor Huddleston who, in 1950, when apartheid was being developed with a passion by the National Party government, looked for the guidance of the church and, when he did not see much, declared, “the church sleeps on, although it sometimes talks in its sleep”. Therefore, all of us must take up the challenge – citizens and churches alike – as we strive in partnership to build a better life for all.

TOMMOROW MAY BE TOO LATE!

*Reverend Jan A Scholtz is the former chairperson of the //Kharas Regional Council and former !Nami#nus constituency councillor. He holds a Diploma in Theology, B-Theo (SA), a Diploma in Youth Work and Development from the University of Zambia (UNZA), as well as a Diploma in Education III (KOK) BA (HED) from UNISA