News feed for: Christians in Politics Portal

ECPM Nordic Conference: Perspective of Christian Democracy in the Nordic Countries

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:14:02 +0200

The European Christian Political Movement invites you to participate in our upcoming Nordic conference in Tallinn (Estonia), September 9-11, 2010. The theme of this conference will be "the Perspective of Christian Democracy in the Nordic Countries".

This year, the ECPM will have it’s 3rd conference about Christian politics in the Nordic countries. The September conference in Estonia will tackle issues like the increasing secularism in the Nordic countries but also the numeral crises in Europe today. Furthermore, the role of the European Union in all these processes will be discussed.

In the coming weeks, more details about the programme will be announced. If you already want to register for the conference, you can do so here.

We hope to meet you in Tallinn in September!

For more information, click here.

Politics with eternal significance - the combination of tsedeq and radah

Wed, 12 May 2010 10:04:02 +0200

In this article Andrew Basden discusses whether Christians should become active in politics drawing from examples from the Bible. However, he also explores what the direction, goals and style of politically active Christians should be.

You can find more on Andrew Basden and his writings on http://www.basden.demon.co.uk/andrew.html

Andrew Basden.

(The text on which the following is based was published as a Briefing Paper by the Whitefield Institute during 2001.)

British evangelical Christians don't get involved in politics very much or very often. But evangelicals in the 19th century did, and changed the world for God. So should Christians today? According to a growing number of writers, they should.

A First View of Politics

In the Whitefield Institute's Briefing Paper 'Thinking Christianly About Politics', Andrew Goddard highlights the paucity of the view taken by many. On the one hand, traditional Christian teaching on politics has too easily "advocat[ed] uncritical acceptance of established political authority" by being based on, for example, Romans 13 and "Render to Caesar", ignoring the many texts that advocate criticism of the authorities. On the other hand, politics can become an idol that "feeds off people's devotion, but instead of meeting their real needs, simply creates more chaos." He deplores some Christian politicians who appeal to only one or two doctrines to support their political stance, and tries to set a Christian approach to politics in a wider theological context. In his paper he argues that Christians should be more involved in politics.

He characterises politics as "inextricably bound up with coercive rule and the power of enforcement", and defines its "proper role" as being to curb evil by means of this power. In doing so, he puts into words what many of us believe.

But this is only a first step in understanding politics; we can go further, to a richer view of politics that is more satisfying. The purpose of this page is to discuss this further, richer view.

Augustine's View

Goddard bases his view in Augustine's writings, especially The City of God. Augustine's theme is that there are two 'cities', of God and of the world, that are against each other. The city of God comprises those who love God rather than self and that of the world, those who love self rather than God. The city of God will eventually triumph. It is ultimately independent of state or society, and cannot even be identified with the Church, since only God knows where each person's love is directed. Likewise the city of the world is not necessarily to be identified with Rome.

Augustine sees politics as of little eternal importance, and allows it only a minimal role. Goddard expounds some the reasons why Augustine believes this. First, in Genesis 1:26-28, where God tells humanity to 'have dominion over' various parts of the creation, what we are given 'dominion' over does not include other human beings. Therefore it cannot be God's ultimate intention that human beings will have 'dominion' over each other. Second, Jesus' authority was of a different kind. Third, because some Scriptures (e.g. Rom.13) support coercive power, however, politics must be God's will during this present era in which sin and evil abound, in that it provides humanity with a mechanism to curb evil. But, even so, politics is not effective in dealing with evil since the only real answer is redemption through Christ.

An Unsatisfying View

This view of politics is essentially a negative view, possibly deriving partly from Augustine's experience within a pagan political system in which coercive power was the norm and was cruel. If the value of politics lies only in the curbing of sin and evil, and yet does not effectively deal with them, it would seem to have no eternal significance, and no role in God's final kingdom.

This is an unsatisfying view of politics. One could be forgiven for thinking that time or effort spent in politics is a waste, when compared with more 'ultimate' and 'redemptive' activity such as evangelism. The result is that Christians tend not to get involved in politics, not even to curb evil. Further, this view does not seem to offer any principled way of relating politics to such things as economics, environment, foreign policy, social services, provision of infrastructure, etc. One's stance on such things is then at the mercy of the political party one belongs to or one's own personal interest, and not subjected to the critique of Scripture.

It is also a view that cannot give much practical guidance on political involvement. If politics is given by God, we can expect that at least some of his people will be called to engage in it, but the Augustine-based view gives us no basis for deciding who is called. If I feel a concern over the destruction of God's creation, how do I decide whether that constitutes God's call to become involved in politics, as opposed to my own personal feeling? And what kind of activity should I be involved in? Politics is to curb evil - yet what methods of limitation are valid? When is the method of limitation actually more evil than that which it is trying to prevent? Politics, we are told, is about the coercive power of enforcement - but when and how should we use that power? And what should be enforced? When should we accept, and when reject, established authority? Politics, we are told, is fraught with dangers, yet how do we recognise, meet and avoid the dangers? Not only does this view of politics provide no direct guidance for addressing such issues, it does not offer any basis on which to seek guidance.

A third problem with the Augustinian conception of what politics entails is that it does not agree with the full Biblical view. For one thing, the idea that politics curbs evil rests uncomfortably with the Scriptural notion that the cure for evil is not law but the Holy Spirit living in people. For another, if humans should not rule other humans, how can Luke 22:30, for example, strongly suggest that precisely this will happen in God's Kingdom. More importantly, the logic of his argument is weak, namely that since Genesis 1:28 does not speak of dominion over human beings, then it is outside God's intention. It is dangerous to build a complete system of thought, in which the effect is to relegate such an important topic as politics to secondary status, on the mere absence of a mention, especially as its absence can be explained in other ways. But, as we shall see, the main difference is that the Augustinian view misses some positive things found in Scripture.

Though Augustine was one of the greatest theologians of all time, he was always influenced by his early life and by the philosophy of Plato, to elevate the importance of the spiritual world and denigrate things of this material world. It was no wonder that he gave politics a secondary role. Also, in seeing politics as coercive power, we can detect the influence of Roman rule.

A Richer Type of Politics

Paul Marshall's excellent book, 'Thine is the Kingdom', gives a starting point for a much richer, more positive view of politics that is more satisfying and able to guide us in practice. After noting its root in the Greek word polis (which means management of public affairs) Marshall starts from the same point as Augustine, the Cultural Mandate of Genesis 1:26-28. However, instead of arguing from missing words, Marshall examines closely the meaning of the Hebrew word that is translated as 'have dominion over': radah. He finds it to be more like stewardship and management than coercive power or what we would think of as domination.

Our Western concept of dominion is contaminated by Aristotle's monarchianism, to become something harsh and self-seeking. Such would be the type of power Augustine experienced in the Roman empire. But from passages like Ezekiel 34, where God condemns the self-seeking type of radah practiced by the "shepherds of Israel", it is clear that in God's eyes radah should be used to the benefit of the ones managed, and not for our own benefit, convenience or pleasure. This accords with Genesis 2:15, where humanity's role is as gardener and guard. (See fuller discussion of radah.)

Marshall continues by linking this with the Hebrew concept embodied in the word tsedeq, which English Bibles translate as 'justice' and 'righteousness'. Because these two words have connotations in English that differ from that of tsedeq (see discussion of tsedeq), Marshall defines the latter as "maintaining right relationships among all things in the created order." Note that this involves not just relationships between human beings, but also relationship with animals, stewardship of the planet, economics, social services, defence, etc. What 'right' means is based on tsedeq principles laid down by God, but which have always to be worked out afresh in each culture and context, and Marshall spends some time examining how this has occurred in various stages throughout Old Testament life. He then works out two modern examples in detail.

Political activity is therefore part and parcel of our being God's representatives on earth, and is meant to demonstrate the very heart of God in his love for the weak, the poor and in fact for all his creation.

Tsedeq-Radah Politics

So we can bring these together into what might be called 'tsedeq-radah politics':

radah is the mandate to engage in political activity, and
tsedeq defines the direction, goals and style of that activity.

But what is this politics, this combination of tsedeq and radah, like? It does not necessarily involve coercive power, so much as the working out of Biblical principles of tsedeq in the local situation, explaining them in ways that are attractive and understandable to those without any knowledge of God, and seeking to be persuasive and responsive. Authority structures and coercive power are seen as merely a means of engaging in politics, and not the core of politics itself. They are necessary, but are not the only means, as I shall show below. Therefore, Augustine's view is now seen as a specialisation of the view discussed here, in which the means and the core have been confused.

It is now easy to see how politics can relate to economics, health, environment, foreign affairs, etc. These things are of 'the created order', and it is our responsibility to manage the relationships between them. For example, consider economics. It is assumed (by Western politicians at least) to be the main criterion by which nations, communities, businesses or organisations are judged, and to provide the main goals for which we aim. But under the view outlined here, economics is a mechanism by which we can more effectively steward God's creation for its own good. This implies major changes to the way we view and practice economics.

Who should be involved in politics? Everyone should be. The Cultural Mandate given to us in Genesis 1 is to all people, both male and female equally (see v.27). This does not mean that everyone should stand for election, nor that everyone is called to exercise authority; there are many ways in which each of us is called upon to "manage and maintain right relationships among all things in the created order" - even in our everyday lives.

Unlike the Mosaic covenant, this mandate has never been rescinded. It is still in force, and we are called upon to obey. Marshall argues this cogently, and provides answers to suggestions such as "If Jesus is about to return, and this earth is to be destroyed (II Pet. 3:10), then what's the point of stewarding it?" (His answer is based on the importance of obedience, and other writers like Walsh and Middleton (1984) have pointed out that it is likely that the correct rendering of II Pet. 3:10 is that this earth will be 'renewed' rather than destroyed.) In fact, several passages clearly imply that the creation has a role in eternity. Col. 1:20 and Eph. 1:10 say that the whole creation will be summed up in Christ, and Heb. 1:1-3 says that the creation will be Christ's inheritance. Rom. 8:19-21 tells us that the creation will enjoy the same kind of release as we will at the resurrection. Therefore what we do to it (via our radah) is likely to leave its mark, throughout eternity. This kind of thinking completely escaped Augustine, who was influenced by Greek thinking about the transience of the material world. Readers interested in following this further are referred to Paul Marshall's more recent book, Heaven is Not My Home (1998).

So we see that politics as a combination of tsedeq and radah is no longer a secondary, holding operation to limit evil (though it does do that) but is a positive and primary mandate given by God before the Fall. This Cultural Mandate is a command of equal status with Jesus' Great Commission. So we can begin to see that this kind of politics might even have eternal significance. Though we are in the realms of interpretation here, it seems likely that the result of our tsedeq-radah will be to beautify, develop and prepare the creation for the One who will inherit it.

What are the dangers of politics? One mentioned by Goddard is that it can become an idol that demands devotion. But politics can go wrong for other reasons too, including injustice (which is disobedience against tsedeq) and complacency (which is disobedience against radah). The answer to dangers is not to avoid politics, but it is the same answer to all idolatry and sin: the cross of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in those involved. It is not politics that is the problem, but politicians - and that means everyone.

An Example

My own political activity has involved other means than coercive power. I have been involved in commenting on and influencing local land use plans, such as the Cheshire Structure Plan, the Warrington Borough Plan, and about half a dozen others, as well as local transport plans, etc. While most contributors to the local plan consultation process represent vested interests, and seek to steer the plans to meet those interests, we employed a different approach. First, we sought to establish principles of tsedeq that were especially relevant to the purposes of the plan. One example: for a land use plan, the requirement to steward the natural creation suggests the need for environmentally sensitive integration of human activity with the natural world, rather than (as we have it now) defining a few protected areas and allowing the rest to be 'up for grabs'. Then, in the second part, we commented on how each proposed policy either fulfilled or went against the principles set out in the first part. By and large, the local authority planners have been impressed with our work and we have had some influence (though other factors limit that).

This is not to imply that every Christian should get involved in local planning. It is an example of how one Christian did get involved in ways that did not require formal election etc. And I have found it has forced me to think out various issues such as inward investment, housing, countryside from this new direction. However, what matters is that we are all called to a certain kind of involvement, namely to take responsibility for both justice and also the structures of society that either encourage or hinder justice.

Conclusion

So we see that Scripture contains a very positive view of political activity, as the combination of radah with tsedeq. It involves managing all the relationships among things in the created order, as stewards, and for the good of the creation itself rather than for our own good.

Because all the creation will one day be summed up in Christ, such political activity is of eternal significance. Everyone is called to be involved in such political activity, but it involves many means and not just what is normally considered political authority. There are dangers, of course, but these can be recognised and avoided. I suggest that this view of politics is much richer than the Augustinian one, deeply satisfying, and that it provides a Biblical framework which Christians can work out in practice.

References and Further Reading

Goudzwaard B, (1981), Idols of our Time, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA.

Marshall P, (1984) Thine is the Kingdom, Marshall, Morgan and Scott, Basingstoke, U.K.

Marshall P, Gilbert L, (1998) Heaven is Not My Home; Learning to Live in God's Creation, Word Publishing, Nashville, USA.

Walsh B J, Middleton J R, (1984), The Transforming Vision; Shaping a Christian World View, IVP, Illinois, ISBN 0-87784-973-0.

Part of his xn pages, that open up various things from one of the Christian perspectives. Comments, queries welcome.

Created: 19 January 2003. Last updated: 19 November 2006 unet.

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

Macedonia and the European Union: Between Integration and Identity

Tue, 11 May 2010 17:37:41 +0200

In this article Leo van Doesburg (representative for the European Christian Political Movement in Eastern Europe) discusses both the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is part of the EU's Lisbon treaty) and the Principle of Subsidiarity. Both are very relevant in the context of the current political situation in Macedonia.

I was surprised to learn about the strong pressure on the Macedonian government following the adoption of the new anti-discrimination law that does not mention sexual orientation. It is interesting that these emotional discussions mainly base themselves on vague terms like “European values” and “European standards”. Even the European Commission reminded Macedonia that its anti-discrimination legislation should be in line with the “Charter of Fundamental Rights”, part of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. What was interesting was that the Charter was only used for Article 21 (where “Sexual orientation” is protected). The consequences for other rights like “the freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 10 of the Charter) or for the “Freedom of Expression and information” (Art. 11 of the Charter) were mainly forgotten in these discussions. Furthermore I found it strange that the pressure did not start from Macedonian society, but mainly from abroad: from ambassadors, certain European Parliamentarians and even from the European Commission. This raises the question whether they are really in line with “European standards?”

If we talk about the Lisbon Treaty, we do not talk about a “European constitution”, but about the “Treaty”. This Treaty amends previous treaties. For example one of the basic (still valid) principles is the “Principle of Subsidiarity”. This is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that constant checks are made as to whether action at Community level is justified in the light of the possibilities available at national, regional or local level. Specifically, it is the principle whereby the Union does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the Union should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty (see Article 5 of the Treaty Establishing the European Union.). The question is whether the external pressure on this issue is justified or that the decision on this issue should be taken “as closely as possible to the citizen”.

Besides, the European Union is not a superstate, but more a Unity of diverse States each with their own character. There are more liberal countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, and Sweden but also more conservative countries like Poland, Romania and Italy. You can see this for example in the family legislations: the legislation in Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and (recently) Romania provide for a one man-one woman marriage. Even the Italian supreme court has interpreted marriage under Italian law between a man and woman (even though Italian law refers to marriage as the union between “spouses” without being specific as to sex). However, it seems that liberal (mainly West European) countries seem to take a monopoly on “modern and progressive” or even “European values.” All means are used to promote these Western values: money, pressure, manipulation and even lies.

However this does no justice to the fact that the EU is diverse and decisions are made by means of negotiations and compromises. This is also one of the reasons that the United Kingdom signed a protocol to the Lisbon treaty relating to the application of the Charter in their country which, according to the then British Minister for Europe, would ensure that the Charter would not extend the powers of the European Court of Justice over United Kingdom law. In 2007, the Polish government indicated that they wished to be included in the British protocol. If member states can secure either full or partial opt-outs of the Charter, then EU candidate countries should have the same right to do so, or at least be given the opportunity to negotiate on certain issues.

This is actually the reason why “European values” are not clearly defined and in my opinion this is also totally not necessary. I feel for example completely uncomfortable about creating a “European superstate.” I believe that the strength of Europe lies in unity through diversity. This makes the continent unique and is also the basis for a pluriform community: a Union where different peoples, religions, and cultures live together in peace, prosperity and freedom. These are the real European values! East European countries have struggled to find these values after decades of communist rule. Now that they have embraced these values, should they renounce them again and embrace the radical neo-liberal dogmas of Western Europe against their own will?

Last but not least, the “Charter of Fundamental Rights“ (which the European Commission was referring to) clearly states that no right in the Charter shall be used to undermine any other right that is recognized by the Charter. Art. 52(1) “Prohibition of abuse of rights: Nothing in this Charter shall be interpreted as implying any rights to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Charter or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for herein.”

The opposition in Macedonia has criticized the dispute over the anti-discrimination law as a “shameful scandal” for the country. I call it an act of courage. It shows that the Macedonian government is mature and dares to stand for the rights and interests of Macedonia even under enormous pressure. Furthermore, it shows the European Commission that it has to respect the Principle of Subsidiarity and the decisions of democratic governments in Europe.

Leo van Doesburg
Representative for the European Christian Political Movement in Eastern Europe

This article was slightly edited for the Christians in Politcs Portal.

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

The culture of monogamy vs the culture of polyamory

Wed, 12 May 2010 10:04:27 +0200

This article is based on the speech held by Pat Fagan (Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Research on Marriage and Religion at the Family Research Council) during the 2009 World Congress of Families in Amsterdam.

Fagan has an interesting and provocative view on the fundamental differences between what he calls the 'polyamorous' and the 'monogamous' cultures of today. Fagan analyses both cultures and criticizes the currently dominating polyamorous culture. He delivers a fresh but also troubling insight on current events in American society.

The problem of freedom[1]

Patrick Fagan, Ph.D.

The “monogamous” and the “polyamorous” cultures have totally different approaches to life, with monogamous marriage and religious worship being the defining differences in their approaches to the sexual act. Coexistence necessitates that the differences be observed by giving parents of both cultures control over the programs that cause conflict: education, adolescent health and sex education. Monogamous men need to act in new ways to obtain this for the sake of their own children.

The culture of the traditional family is now in intense competition with a very different culture. The defining difference between the two is the sexual ideal embraced. The epi-center of the political and social storm is how the sexual is viewed, taught and practiced. The sixth and ninth commandments, our personal, community and national governance of these issues is the great divide, not just for personal emotional reasons but for myriad reasons of profound impact on the local, national and global levels, as I hope you will see by the end of this talk.

Western civilization is based on and organized around lifelong sexual monogamy, meaning having a sexual relationship with only one person over the course of a lifetime, a spouse. The competing culture, which is growing virulently, is polyamorous, with serial sexual relationships both before and after the first marriage.

In this paper, I will be using “monogamy” and “polyamory” to refer to these two cultures, as we highlight the differences between and consequences of lifelong sexual commitment on the one hand and sexual fluidity and plasticity on the other.

To drive the differences home I will use ideal types to distinguish the two cultures: monogamy and polymorphous serial polygamy, or “polyamory” for short. Many people occupy a fuzzy middle (which puts them on the side of polyamory even if they regard themselves as being of the culture of monogamy.

Over both these cultures lies the welfare state and its operational bureaucracies. This presents citizens of both cultures with a serious question: How can one government and its set of bureaucracies serve these two very different cultures.

Can one servant (in our nation government is our servant, not our master) serve two masters simultaneously?

The complexities of modern life, driven mainly by constant new technologies, give rise to many physical dangers to individual and common good that were not present in earlier history.

But the nature of the task of bureaucracies change when in the realm of the social, when protecting human beings from their own or others’ shortcomings.

These behavioral (social) bureaucracies deal with issues such as poverty, crime addictions, many dimensions of health, including sexuality gone wrong (unwanted pregnancies, infectious diseases).

By and large, the culture of polyamory today politically embraces the behavioral bureaucracy which embraces it in return, while the culture of monogamy has increasing disagreements with it and is shunted aside by these bureaucracies for they serve two masters at once.[2] This is understandable and unavoidable when the differences between the two cultures are examined and understood.

The culture of monogamy and the culture of polyamory differ in profound assumptions on the way society functions. Some of the differences are:

The culture of monogamy is built around the traditional, natural family for its protection. In the culture of polyamory the traditional—natural—family is just one option among many and often considered a nuisance because of its claims to special difference and superior effectiveness.
In the culture of monogamy, men are anchored in their families and tied to their children and wives, through the free and deliberate focus of their sexuality. In the culture of polyamory, which, at its core, treasures sexual freedom or license, such sexual constraint by men or women is not expected nor is any attempt to foster such acceptable, for such would be the antithesis of the main project of the culture of polyamory: polymorphous sexuality when mutually desired by two or more partners.[3]
A co-equal difference is the place of religion and the worship of the Creator has a very different place in both cultures. The culture of monogamy is infused from top to bottom with the sacred, in personal, family, community and national life. Worship of God is frequent and assumed. The culture of polyamory tends much more to hide religion, even to suppress it in all things public. It worships God less and demands that religion be private.[4]
The culture of monogamy views freedom as the freedom to be good while the culture of polyamory views freedom as having no constraints imposed on you.
Thus in the culture of monogamy insight and intellect are paramount for knowing the good that has to be pursued, while in the culture of polyamory what is paramount is the will to do what one likes. Aristotlean realism on one side, Nietzschean will to power on the other.
In epistemology, the culture of monogamy tends towards a belief in objective truth—that reality exists and can be known, while the culture of polyamory tends towards an ideological take (one can hardly call it “understanding”) on the truth—that reality results from an imposition of the will.
In morals the culture of monogamy tends towards universal moral norms while the culture of polyamory embraces moral relativism, not just in the sexual, but in many other moral issues also.
Freedom is seen very differently: The freedom to be good is the essential view of the monogamous culture’s view of freedom while choice, unrestricted by moral norms, is the culture of polyamory’s view of freedom.
The culture of monogamy is at ease with rules when they serve to make wise decisions easier by eliminating temptations. Such rules free one from the distraction of evil in order to choose what is good. The culture of polyamory sees freedom only as unrestricted choice, even if the choice leads to bad conclusions.[5]
The language of virtue sits well with the culture of monogamy but uncomfortably with the culture of polyamory where some virtues, even fundamental virtues such as chastity and modesty, are held in disdain.
The laws of the culture of monogamy protect by forbidding—outlawing—certain actions. The culture of polyamory protects by prescribing programs and ensuring outcomes for all, no matter their choice.[6]
Above the floor of the forbidden the culture of monogamy leaves all goals and actions freely available to everyone. The polyamorous culture, having less of a floor, constantly increases prescriptive and regulatory detail, telling people more and more how they must act.
The laws of the culture of monogamy are designed to protect one’s capacity to pursue legitimate goods of one’s choice (and they are myriad) but those of the culture of polyamory are designed to guarantee particular outcomes for everyone, especially income outcomes.
One of the most notable characteristics of the culture of polyamory is its denial of personhood to some of the most innocent and vulnerable, the unborn and the infirm, thus denying them the law’s protection of the innocent, while in the culture of monogamy the key function and foundational justification of legitimate government is precisely this: the protection of the innocent.
In the culture of monogamy all human life is sacred and protected, be it the pre-born, the handicapped or the elderly. In the culture of polyamory about one third of the pre-born are killed by their mothers, and the handicapped and elderly are unwelcome and increasingly vulnerable to early elimination.
The constitutional state was the product of a monogamous culture; it could never have emerged from a culture of polyamory, and has not emerged in non-monogamous cultures. It assumes responsible citizens. The expanding social welfare state is the product of the culture of polyamory and is increasingly hostile to the culture of monogamy. It is created for less responsible citizens.[7]
Regulations are minimal in the culture of monogamy because laws, stated clearly in the negative (“Thou shalt not”), require minimal regulatory interpretation. The culture of polyamory having no such clear negatives, through programs and policies aimed at outcomes and safety nets, enumerates what must be done not only that which may not be permitted.[8]
The culture of monogamy, by being child oriented, is future oriented and full of hope: the child is protected and the next generation, the future of the country, is the main focus of the society’s work. For the culture of polyamory the present welfare of adults is its main focus.
The culture of polyamory, contrary to the claims of radical feminists, aggressively fosters the male they most decry: the sexually and physically harassing, the abusing and abandoning male. Being the natural cost of its defining project, these and related dysfunctions justify and necessitate more safety nets, bigger behavioral bureaucracies. The degree of their attachment to their licence is visible in the absence of the promotion of marriage, even their opposition to any promotion of marriage.[9]
In the culture of monogamy men not only are anchored, they are required to be so. In the culture of polyamory women are the anchors while men can drift or be cast adrift, as they or their women desire, and they do so in very large numbers --- to the massive detriment of their children and the mothers of their children.
In the culture of monogamy gender roles are more differentiated, with women more fertile and likely to give more of their time to the tasks of motherhood while the men are likely to be the sole or the main source of family income. The culture of polyamory is much more androgynous, its main focus being equality of outcomes for both men and women in the workplace and in the home. Many who attempt androgyny are finding that it is only the super-gifted among them who can “have it all”, that is very, very few.
The culture of polyamory cultivates strong girls (a good) but at the cost of weaker boys (not a good, but a great social weakness or evil).[10]
The culture of monogamy is more economical and effective in raising citizens with habits and aptitudes needed by society, while the culture of polyamory at its very best only fractionally achieves these and always with major unintended consequences, for instance its welfare programs engendering a permanent underclass. In other words the culture of polyamory’s social policy is not working while marriage and worship are --- massively so by contrast.[11]
The culture of monogamy, built on appetite constraint through deliberate focus, has minimal needs for behavioral bureaucracies. The culture of polyamory, designed as a safety net not only for the unlucky but especially for the unrestrained, increasingly relies on social welfare programs to rescue its adherents from the effects of its choices in matters sexual. Without its safety net the culture of polyamory would collapse of its own weight and disorder.[12]
For the public purse, the culture of monogamy is inexpensive; the culture of polyamory is very expensive. [13] It likely depends on a massive transfer of payments from one culture to another.
In sum, the culture of monogamy is a culture dedicated to building belonging while the culture of polyamory is a culture dedicated to sexual belonging that assumes future rejection when passion and feelings pass.
The culture of monogamy is dedicated to self sacrificing love. The culture of polyamory is prepared to sacrifice love in its dedication to the self.

The culture of monogamy welcomes the love called eros, in romance and courtship but goes on to transcend it in the second love --- agape. The culture of polyamory is fixated on and glorifies eros.

How can these two cultures live together in the same political order?

Is it possible for these two cultures to live together in the same political order? This is the political question which defines our day. Over and above the differences just delineated, two issues leap to the fore in their political consequences:

In population, the culture of monogamy is fertile and expanding while the culture of polyamory is below replacement and contracting.[14]
The culture of monogamy is inexpensive while the culture of polyamory is very expensive.

Despite these two seeming “killer conclusions”, and contributing significantly to the tension between the two, whether by happenstance or deliberate design, the culture of polyamory has figured out its way to survive and even thrive by controlling three critical areas of public policy, which yield big gains in “converts” from the culture of monogamy to theirs. These three are childhood education, sex education and the control of adolescent health programs.

Controlling these three expands the polyamory culture’s reach into the traditional monogamous culture and gradually dismantles it, especially when aided by the entertainment industry, which today especially, is a very powerful institution aligned with the culture of polyamory with a massive operative bias against the monogamy culture.

By controlling these three areas (education of children, sex education and adolescent health) the culture of polyamory diminishes the influence and dismantles the authority and influence of parents of the culture of monogamy particularly in their ability to form their children as members of their own culture. One could say they “snatch” children away from their parents and from the culture of monogamy.

This “snatching” is almost complete when these three program areas result in adolescents accepting and engaging in sexual intercourse.

Every time the polyamorous (anti-monogamy) programs and the media succeed in drawing teenagers into sexual activity they have captured another “Janissry”[15] and won a number of victories simultaneously:

The adolescent has been initiated into the polyamorous culture (albeit without knowledge of what is at stake) by having his first sexual experience outside of marriage;[16]
With the out of wedlock births or abortions that follow they have broken the family before it has started, solidifying the polyamorous stature of the adolescent or young adult;
And, with powerful consequences, they have pulled the young person away from participating in the sacred because formerly religious teenagers who begin to engage regularly in sex outside of marriage tend to stop worshipping God.

The culture of polyamory achieves all this without any overt, direct attack. It is silent and subtle but very substantive in its victories and outcomes. And they know it, and are fierce in protecting their control of these programs, with fierceness nothing in the culture of monogamy rivals in intensity or success.

For instance, in the United States of the last decade, the rise of abstinence education—monogamy education—immediately galvanized the institutions of the culture of polyamory in the US into massive political counter-attack, culminating in their recent victory which eliminated federal funding for such programs. This came to pass despite all the good that came with abstinence, including reducing teenage abortions, out of wedlock births and sexually-transmitted diseases, while increasing educational attainment.

In Europe where the culture of polyamory has greater sway, the clearest illustration of its continuing advance is the attack against the monogamy culture’s new bastion of effectiveness --- home-schooling and home rearing, either in early childhood (up to six years of age) or throughout even longer periods of childhood. In home schooling the Big Three programs (education, adolescent health and sex ed.) are all under the control of the parents and, we know from US data of some depth, yield outcomes far superior[17] to what the state-controlled programs can yield.

Since the 1960’s the culture of polyamory has led to a massive weakening of the United States for it has led to a massive weakening of our citizens in all areas --- in all the five basic tasks of every society, community, family, marriage and individual: the tasks of sexuality, of religion, of learning, of income and of governance. Normally we call these family, church, school, marketplace and government. In all we are weaker and weaker: and we know it.

How can the monogamous family survive and thrive in this postmodernist (polyamorous) Social Welfare State era?

State controlled programs today in developed countries, almost universally, are polyamorous-friendly and monogamy-hostile. This is unjust from every perspective of political analysis because those who choose monogamy are, generally, the most effective, the cheapest and the safest in raising the next generation.

But they are unjust mainly because it is a universal, inalienable right of parents to raise their children as they see fit, including raising them in their culture.

Further, the social welfare state asks the monogamous to support the polyamorous, and uses the universal safety net insurance scheme (or taxes) to ensure that the monogamous pay more to support those who choose the polyamory culture. This is plainly unjust, but even more so because the monogamous do not have their own culture-friendly programs and their own children are the target of the culture of polyamory’s “Janissary” scheme. Justice will increase and tensions decrease when that culture of polyamory begins to pay its own costs.

One way to progress in this direction and to make the behavioral bureaucracy to serve both cultures is to give all parents, parents of both cultures, and control over the program money set aside for their children. That is giving parents vouchers, in one form or another for all three program areas

The other way is to divide the bureaucracies into two: one for the monogamy culture the other for the polyamory culture. Citizens can choose which they want (and pay taxes accordingly).

The social welfare safety net will still be in place but the parents (be they monogamous or polyamorous) will choose who holds the net in place for their children.

Whatever solution we choose the bottom line is that those who hold to the culture of monogamy must have control over those agents of transmission of the sexual and religious norms to their children. At present we do not.

In the first solution the flow of money from the special interest groups (organized doctors, teachers, schools) and instead directing the voucher money (cost per child served) to the parent— who can then choose the individual doctor, teacher or school they want, will take enormous political effort. But the professionals will still receive the same amount of money. But instead of serving a bureaucracy they will be cooperating with the parents. But such a change is a big one in the political order and the culture of monogamy must harness itself to the task.

By its very make-up, the culture of monogamy organizes itself bottom up, not top down in social (and thus political) matters. It solves its social problems by forming its own private “platoons.” And in the protection of the family, men have the special role of being the primary protector. Thus, in this political competition for peaceful coexistence, the male needs to especially engage the increasingly hostile state and the polygamy culture whenever it “raids” the territory of his family’s domain.

The presence or absence of the father is one of the great defining differences between the two cultures. Therefore not only fathers, but all men who support monogamous marriage, need to step forward to stand for the difference. The modern tendency of seeing family issues as mainly a woman’s issue, especially in public discourse, is an influence of the culture of polyamory. As a result men often are not regarded as the best spokespersons, solely because of their gender. But precisely because men make the difference they need to be seen at the forefront of this competition. Their women and children need them in the sacred core of the family; society needs them in the same way at the public core of this discourse. (Of course this does not take away a whit from the need for women and mothers to be involved in this discourse.)

Every male in the monogamy culture, and especially every father, will find his way to be engaged in this protection of his children, and, given what is at stake, other men and women of the culture of monogamy will increasingly expect this of every man.

Monogamy men will be expected to fight for control over is what is his and his family’s just due, what his taxes fund, and what he can use in raising his children: control over the three big programs of childhood education, sex education and adolescent health programs, so that they can be carried out in a way that supports the norms of the culture of monogamy. In this rearrangement parents of the culture of polyamory have the same control to do as they wish for their children.

In this way, both cultures can live together with much greater ease and peace.

Now, we are tasked with gathering, planning, and exhorting each other and drawing to our side not only monogamous men but the fathers of good will in the culture of polyamory, for their children will also benefit from their having control over the Big Three programs.

However, first let monogamous men get serious about being men: protecting their own families by obtaining for them the same resources that the poyamorous are given for their children.

The culture of monogamy has never encountered this type of competition ever before in all of human history. We must engage, if we are to have equality and the peace that comes with it. We can wait no longer; we need men of courage and energy. We are looking for the first few.

How do we go forward and strengthen the culture of monogamy locally, and at the state and national levels? This is the work that urgently confronts us.

To redress and change this weakness I suggest we first get control of our own for ourselves --- in justice, and by that very process, provide to those stuck in the middle, the example of how to be strong again.

We need to target the main injustices which must be redressed for us:

Control of our schools for our children. The public schools in many areas do not transmit the culture of monogamy. That is unjust for parents who are monogamous.

Control of all sex education given to our children: for the monogamous there is only one way to go: one man or one woman for life --- and all the support that such a path entails.

But to pull off these reforms we must also reform ourselves in our Churches:

First: Marriage Reform in the Church.

Restoration of the defense of chastity by men, in public.
We hace the best sex and give the best to our wives.

Requiring modesty of dress from women around us.

Marriage Reform in the Black Church. The black family sufferes most from the onslaught of polyamory culture (Planned Parenthood) against it..not only in abortion but particularly in its assault on the chastity of its young men and women. This leads to massive rates of abortion and fatherless families.

In our universities to develop the economic sciences more: making clear the intimate connections between marriage and the economy: that marriage and worship together have profound strengthening effects on the economy. Both have profound effects on the growth of small businesses (the major employment sector of the major economy on earth) and the source of 80% of the growth of the major economy on earth. Most stock holders in this country are married. h Tax paper. Family businesses, marriage, growth of capital, stocks, investing, taxes paid.

Freedom and peace both need the virtues that flow from marriage and worship. Without them democracies will become cisterns of conflict, corruption and war. We can sense now the correctness of Mother Theresa when she warned that abortion will be the cause of war.

We need men who will protect their families and their children, who will demand and get justice for their families in education, in health and in sex education, who will demand a rearrangement of society if it needs that, so that first they can preserver their families and then so that they can win back most of the rest to a good way of life.

Such men will be both tough and tender. Tender in their families (though occasionally tough when their children need it) and tough in their public stance (though tender when dealing with wounded individuals of the polyamoury culture --- and there are lots of them).

Protective of our own and working to win back the middle: Tender and Tough, Tough and Tender.

To help NC Family Policy Council do this the Marriage and Religion Research Institute (MARRI) at the Family Research Council will be providing as much research backup as our resources make can make available.

For the data are on our side and the social sciences well done cannot but illustrate the way God made man.

And we do believe that the pen (and persuasion) is mightier than the sword.

This year we will be issuing 10 synthesis papers (overviews of the social science) and two new Annual Reports … the next one on the effects of pornography then the Effects of Religious Worship on Educaiton.

The Annual Report on the American Family …showing where we were and where we are.

And the Annual Belonging Rejection Ratio, the key statistic on the future of America: what proportion of our children grows up in an intact married family. They are the core strength of the future of the nation (though everyone is held special and unique by all of us). We will give this for the nation, for each state and for the top 25 cities in the country. Each year for the next three years we will be able to increase the detail until we can rank order most of the cities and counties of the nation (and within each state too --- by 2012).

Bill and his staff rank among the very highest in the nation in doing state level family policy work --- at the very top.

They represent the traditional family in the finest manner possible and with great professionalism, in all their ways of communicating. Thank you for supporting them and I look forward to continuing to do so as well in the years to come.

***

Patrick F. Fagan is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Research on Marriage and Religion at the Family Research Council.

This article was slightly edited for the Christians in Politcs Portal.

[1] The following speech was given by Pat Fagan to the World Congress of Families in Amsterdam on August 12, 2009. The World Congress of Families is the world’s largest conference of pro-family leaders and grass-roots activists.

[2] For instance: the continuing struggles on matters sexual deep within the HHS bureaucracy every time there a change in the Presidency coincides with a change in party affiliation.

[3] The history of federally funded abstinence education is the clearest case in point. Hundreds of millions of dollars goes into polyamorous sex education. Opponents (members of the culture of polyamory) worked tirelessly, and successfully to defund abstinence education.

[4] The modern discussion on the place of the recognition of God and religion in America’s original self definition is increasingly illustrating the stance of the Founding Fathers, even the more non-conformist of them, as one of reverence. (See for instance Michael Novak’s book “On Two Wings”). By contrast the ACLU and its academic allies would have a very different place (none) in public, or in public institutions for God or religion.

[5] A good analogy would be the rules of a family household where parents have rules not to unjustly limit or burden their children but rather to free them to live healthily, safely, and morally. Many modern parents are now confused about this aspect of freedom and leave even young children choose (or rule) even when they do not have the maturity to decide.

[6] This clash of views on the nature of law is the big contributor to disagreement in the health care reform debate of 2009.

[7] It is worth noting that the bending (if not the eventual breaking) of the Constitution began with Griswold vs Connecticut (1965) when Planned Parenthood’s efforts wrought the change in the way the Constitution was interpreted so that contraceptives could be used. This was gained by finding a “right to marital privacy”. It was quickly followed (1972) with a ruling expanding that right to individual privacy (not marital privacy as in Griswold) thus conferring the right to procreation outside of marriage: “"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." EISENSTADT v. BAIRD, 405 U.S. 438 (1972)

[8] The massive expansion of regulations in finance, in education, in health are often the result of a breakdown in the virtue of the operators, and the breakdown of taboos in society. An enormous amount of regulations in social work result from abandonment of marriage laws. Much the same holds for regulations regarding the administration of poverty programs. Insisting on government control of schools necessitates myriad regulations that would be unnecessary were parents given free choice in schools. Their moral demands coupled with their competitive choices would ensure more virtuous behavior at schools.

[9] One of the clearest instances of this was the revolt by the membership of the National Council of Family Relationships (NCFR), against a joint project by NCFR with the federal Dept. of Health and Human Services to produce a database on marriage. NCFR is the publisher of the premier journal on marriage, a journal which repeatedly documents the superiority of monogamy over other family forms. For NCFR’s handling of the issue see http://blog.lib.umn.edu/perry032/impossible/nhmrcmemberletter_may305.pdf NCFR pulled out of the project.

[10] This difference can be seen rather clearly in education graduation rates where boys are continuously falling behind girls.

[11] The Mapping America project illustrates this repeatedly with charts from national sample US federal government surveys. See www.mappingamericaproject.org. Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher’s book, The Case for Marriage is another. “Why Religion Matters” and “ Why Religion Matters Even More” also make the case from the data.

[12] The deliberate implication here is that there is a massive transfer of payments from the culture of monogamy to the culture of polyamory to pay disproportionately for the safety net.

[13] The studies cited directly above and myriad related studies all point to the increased cost of non intact families and the increased costs of non worshipping or less worshipping families. There is a need to do the gross cumulative estimate on these differences. One good study exists on the cost of divorce (though it deliberately underestimates the cost): The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing. Their estimate: $122 billion per year or over a $1trillion every decade.

[14] See Mapping America TK

[15] This Janissary analogy comes from the practice of the Ottoman Turks of the 14^th century who raided boys from Christian nations to train them as their own elite warriors, the Janissaries

[16] Women over thirty who have had one extramarital partner --- and normally that is before marriage --- have almost a one in two probability of having a divorce. For those with two sexual partners –ever --- outside of marriage, it is more than one in two and with three such partners it is 60:40. Adolescents are not taught this.

[17] For instance see partial evidence for this at (insert the Berlin Powerpoint URL here). Combine this with the data on the effects of religious practice on education attainment, health, income, longevity, and with much lower rates of dysfunctions and illegal behaviors. For this see Why Religion Matters, and Why Religion Matters Even More by Pat Fagan. See also Fagan et al. Map of the Family.

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

A Christian View on International Law

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:35:39 +0100

In this article Vladimir Plamadeala explores the virtues and vices of international law within the Christian context. Vladimir Plamadeala is Master in International and European Public Law and a board member of the European Christian Political Movement

International Law is considered to be the most dynamically developing facet of contemporary Law.

Needless to say, this relatively young concept was inexistent in the times of Jesus Christ, and Saviour’s teachings were not specifically meant for international lawyers. Yet, the universal Christian principles can be applied to all spheres of life, including International Law.

Two aspects can be retained when approaching the notion of International Law from a Christian perspective:

First, bulk of International Law’ norms emanate from the will of States and other authorities appointed by States. Thus, the International Law’s rules and customs could be regarded by Christians as the highest expression of will by High Authorities, whom the Bible teaches to obey (Romans 13:1.)

Second, the Principles of God’s Justice are oftentimes reflected in human models of justice. This is true also for International Law. More than that, International Law appears as less exposed to unjust derogations and despotic provisions that could creep in some national legislations due to possible influence by local ideologues or dictators. Being created according to Creator's “image and likeness”, humans are capable to reflect, at least on paper, some of Godhead’s Principles and these just Principles can be seen in International Law in many instances.

Without enumerating all such occurrences, one can mention at least two positive aspects of International Law that can incline a Christian to support its further development: Principle of impartiality (Leviticus 19:15, Acts 10:34) and care for the weak and unjustly oppressed (Proverbs 14:31, Psalm 12:5.)

Indeed, if justly implemented, International Law would treat world’s strongest powers on equal foot with smaller entities and would not allow bigger and stronger to invade and abuse the weak and defenseless.

On another level, the developing mechanisms of human rights’ protection within International Law system – from care for refugees to possibility of appeal by a harassed housewife – can be welcomed by any sincere Christian.

Such positive aspects of International Law can only make difference if they are widely supported and rightly implemented. Needless to say that in order not to become Pharisees of today, for a practicing Christian it is important not only to encourage and promote just laws, but also their just implementation. Right implementation is about the core of International Law, where multiple non-binding provisions can only be instrumented in conditions of fair-play behavior of International Community's actors. Christians involved in politics could be in the first rows in giving example of respect to progressive norms of International Law.

Of course, the usual reproach may arise from certain circles within Christendom: aren’t we contributing to a futile attempt of raising a new Babylon by supporting in any way the development of International Law? In answering this concern, one has to bear in mind, first, that a big (if not bigger) part of International Law norms still bears non-binding character. These norms are not meant to build global structures but rather to bring order and justice in already existing international relations.

Second, such question should be answered within a more general framework, that is – should Christians withdraw from public life or should they “give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's ” and try to influence the course of things, locally and internationally, without abandoning “the things we have been taught”?

Probably, Christians who are reading this Portal and decided to get involved in politics have already found an answer to this dilemma.

Vladimir Plamadeala, (Moldova)

Board member European Christian Political Movement

LL M International and European Public Law (University of Amsterdam)

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

"Christian Democracy"� an Oxymoron?

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:34:08 +0100

In this article, James Skillen intends to define the concept of "Christian democracy" and reflects on its use referring to the existing negative connotations of the concept and historical abuses of Christians in political power positions.

Christians are often associated with religious fundamentalists. Skillen seeks an answer to the question whether Christianity, from its deepest roots, drives toward public justice for all citizens, including equal, public-legal treatment for people of all faiths. The Scriptures recognize the legitimacy of government, but there is no evidence that Christians are called to use government to impose Christianity on the public. From a biblical perspective, governments have the obligation to do justice to all, especially those who have little or no power, rather than on ways to keep believers in control of unbelievers. This defines the “Christian-democratic” approach to politics and government.

Can the word “Christian” ever convey a positive connotation when used in conjunction with politics and government, or does it necessarily carry the negative baggage of past imperialisms? Is a phrase such as “Christian democracy,” for example, an oxymoron, which Webster defines as “a combination of contradictory or incongruous words,” or can it stand on its own with integrity?

Americans champion democracy and many American Christians believe this is a Christian nation. In that regard, the combination of words hardly sounds oxymoronic. Yet the more we gain historical distance from the era of slavery, anti-Catholicism, and male-dominated White-Anglo-Saxon Protestantism (WASP), the more it appears that “Christian America” is a holdover from “Christian Europe.”

Today, we repeatedly hear and read warnings about the threat of the Religious Right to re-impose Christianity on American society. Religious “fundamentalism” of any kind is regularly associated, if not equated, with radical Islamism. Christianity may be something fine and constructive if it remains confined to its worship services and its helping ministries to the poor and needy. But as soon as there is any sign of Christians pushing for political power, the warning flags go up.

There can be no doubt that Christians (and church institutions) have, in the name of Jesus Christ, used power unjustly to abuse and subordinate others (including other Christians). The first political act by Christians today, therefore, should be to repent of those practices and institutions of injustice that we and our ancestors have supported. Yet such an act does not by itself answer the question of the just use of political power. To assume that if Christianity is disconnected from democratic power justice will automatically be achieved is a foolish and mistaken assumption. Think of all the injustice that has been perpetrated by secular-democratic nationalists, socialists, and liberals.

The question about Christianity and politics, then, is more profound, as is the question about the relation of political power to any set of deep convictions people may hold. The question is whether Christianity, from its deepest roots, drives toward public justice for all citizens, including equal, public-legal treatment for people of all faiths.

This is the question that calls for serious examination today. And the place to start is with the Christian scriptures. For there is no evidence in the Bible that Jesus Christ and his apostles called on government to impose Christianity on the public at large or urged Christians to use political power to gain privileges for themselves. Jesus recognized the legitimacy of government and spoke of God as the one who sends rain and sunshine on the just and unjust alike. He also told his disciples it was not their responsibility to separate believers from unbelievers in the field of the world. Paul urged Christians to recognize and submit to governments as ministers appointed by God to encourage those who do good and to punish those who do wrong. And he admonished fellow believers to live at peace with everyone insofar as it depends on them.

Both the Old and the New Testaments speak of the accountability of governments to God directly and not via submission to the church. Israel, of course, had its own governments, and those in power were repeatedly called to account for not doing justice to the people and even to the aliens within. The greatest body of biblical wisdom on government (in the historical books, Psalms, the prophets, and the wisdom literature) focus attention on government’s obligation to do justice to all, especially those who have little or no power, rather than on ways to keep believers in control of unbelievers. When Job speaks of the awe he inspired as a governing official it was because “I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him . . . . I put on righteousness as my clothing; justice was my robe and my turban. I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame. I was a father to the needy, I took up the case of the stranger” (29:12-16).

A phrase like “Christian democracy” should not be an oxymoron. In fact, I would contend that Christianity, properly mined, is the very fount of an open society offering equal treatment to people of all faiths, political participation and representation for all citizens, strong protections against the abuse of power by government, and provisions to protect the rights of non-government organizations and institutions on an equal-treatment basis. If this is true, then the critical re-reading of history must continue in order to help us understand why and how Christians have accommodated themselves to Roman imperialism, to modern statism and nationalism, and to other means of seeking privileged positions of power.

A “Christian-democratic” approach to politics and government should carry a banner that says, “We will never claim that our deeds or policy proposals are God’s will, but only that they represent our humble human effort to respond to God’s call to do justice.” The will of God is God’s to reveal. If our modest efforts to promote justice in an open public square can mature into a multi-faceted program of just statecraft, then perhaps one day an explicitly Christian approach to politics will be respected both at home and abroad as an honorable and valuable part of the political process.

James W. Skillen,

Editor Periodic Review Christian in Politics Portal

Former President Center for Public Justice, USA.

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

Calvinism as an Indispensable and Renewing Force in Dutch Politics

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:30:10 +0100

The article below is the edited transcript of a speech by Andr� Rouvoet, January 13, 2009, VU Podium at Felix Meritis Amsterdam, on the occasion of the 'Calvin Week' at the opening of the Calvin Year. Andr� Rouvoet is Vice Premier and Minister for Youth and Family of the Netherlands and leader of the Christian Union party.

The five hundredth birthday of Calvin is stirring up quite some interest! Captivating debates about the meaning of Calvin and Calvinism are going on in newspapers and on podia, ranging from studied historical disputes on the ideas of the reformer from Geneva to attempts to attribute to him everything one is uneasy with.

I think I will not enter into a 21^st century version of the dispute between Bavianen and Slijkgeuzen [Rouvoet is referring to an historical theological dispute JT] and would like to plead for some realism. So no anachronistic ‘pitch and feathers’-approach here, but no glorification either.

To show my colours straight away: Yes, I am a Calvinist; and, no, I do not claim Dutch history for Calvinism. I agree with professor Schutte in saying: “The Calvinist Netherlands are a myth, a nineteenth century invention.” At the same time, it is undeniably so that Calvinism in the past five centuries has left deep marks and there is thus every reason to count our blessings in this respect and to pose the question whether the person of John Calvin can in our time, amidst discomfort and crisis, again provide the inspiration that he has for centuries to millions of people world wide and certainly in the Netherlands.

The development of a ‘Calvinist standard’ [a test to measure how Calvinistic one is JT] is in that respect in itself, of course, a nice idea, but if we then see that the ‘Girls of Halal’ [Rouvoet is referring to some Muslim TV-personalities that took the test JT] turn out to be more Calvinistic than Calvin himself according to the standard, we should conclude that our perception of what is Calvinistic does not stand the test.

My contribution tonight sets out from the view that Calvinism was an international, profound renewal of Christian thought that had an historic influence in various countries and eras. This Calvinism still has eloquence today and this is to be expected when we come to realize that Calvinism was not just a hype, but stood on the foundation of the timeless wisdom of the Scriptures and of great thinkers like Augustine. What was new about Calvinism was that it offered a consistent philosophical frame that was equipped for the modern age after the end of the Middle Ages. It later turned out that other thinkers were able to apply his viewpoints while participating in the science and politics of their own times. When speaking at the Free University we cannot leave the Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea, also known as Calvinist or Reformational Philosophy, unmentioned.

I would like to consider briefly the most distinguished blessings of Calvinism - which are political freedom, economic prosperity and cultural development. I shall demonstrate that these things are closely related to religious principles. After that, I will discuss the importance of Calvinism for Dutch politics today.

Calvinism and Freedom

The first blessing of Calvinism that I count is: political freedom. This freedom had to do with the principle of the sovereignty of God. Calvin carried out a coup for the benefit of the individual in that no earthly institute - such as the church, the pope or the state - was between the sovereign God and man any longer. The only thing that counted is the authoritative Word of God. The consequences of this for church and politics can be said to be revolutionary and is proven by the fact that Calvinists did not only justify the right to revolt against perverted authority, but used it too! This placing of earthly power into perspective implied, by extension, the right to religious freedom from which later the other civil liberties evolved. The distinction of Church and State was also one of the products of Calvin’s thought for he strived for a free church that was answerable to God only. Calvin claimed the same freedom in reference to the state for the family too, by the way (sphere sovereignty). So, to resume:

Calvinism sowed the seed for a modern, democratic conviction - first in the church, but then also outside it, in politics and in society. As you will know, in our country it was thinkers like Groen van Prinsterer and Abraham Kuyper and – in philosophical respect – Herman Dooyeweerd that have deepened this thought and made it fruitful.

Calvinism and Economic Prosperity

The second blessing of Calvinism that I count is that of economic prosperity. Here it applies too that a theological principle contributed to societal revolutions. Calvin equated earthly labour and production to a calling performed in direct service to God himself. No theologian before him had spoken of labour in such a positive way! Furthermore, Calvin dismissed the ban on interest which then cleared the way for the modern market economy.

Later on, I will discuss Calvinism as an inspiration to Christian-social politics. I would therefore like to point out here that Calvin’s positive stance regarding economic conduct was accompanied by radical social compassion. He considered it unthinkable that a rich man would keep on enriching himself while witnessing poverty around him. In his view, the rich man had, according to the Bible, the duty to help the poor and certainly the refugees in his vicinity. It is for this reason that Calvin in his sermons sometimes ranted relentlessly against frivolity and decadence because the money spent on such things would be better spent on the poor. So Calvin’s famous soberness has its roots in his effort for social justice!

Calvinism and Culture

A third blessing I want to mention is Calvin’s contribution to cultural development. This deserves explanation because, with the banning of music and sculptures from the church, it would seem that Calvin did not care much for art and culture. I am aiming here at his effort to make people literate and his openness towards science. Laymen should be able to read the Bible themselves, Calvin thought, so the Calvinists in Geneva were the first in the world to establish public primary schools that were open to everyone (Graafland, 2008). The contribution of Calvinism to literacy is undisputed. Scientists should, according to Calvin, glorify God’s majesty in creation by their research. Calvin could combine just fine Copernicus’s insight that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around with his explanation of the Bible that God adapts his speech to man. Again: we note theological principles with societal renewal as a consequence.

Importance for Today

This brings me to the importance of Calvinism for the Netherlands today.

It is evident that Calvinism is still leaving its traces in our current day political landscape. Tonight, as a member of the Cabinet and not an entirely unprejudiced politician of the Christian Union party, I will not discuss how these tracks run and especially along which party political lines. For this you will, moreover, have your own standards. But I thought it was pleasant to read in De Pers [a free newspaper JT] some time ago that even the leader of the liberal VVD party considers himself a Calvinist. My colleague, Mr Bos, has made some remarks about the Calvinist disposition of the social-democrat PvdA. Hence, in some sense then, we could say about the Netherlands: Christian, socialist or liberal, we are all Calvinists!

I fear, though, that we are then merely talking about a Calvinist mentality: that is, some positive virtues that many Dutchmen like to be associated with such as working hard, living soberly and being economical. In other words: the Calvinism of the C-factor [the aforementioned Calvinist standard JT]. The real Calvinism is then associated with more negative characteristics such as being pessimistic, thinking along fixed lines and pettiness. And, of course, we like to recognise these characteristics only in others.

In my definition of what Calvinism stands for, both perceptions overlook from what it is that Calvinism derives its strength. For me, the strength of Calvinism lies herein, that it offers consistent philosophical principles with which any person can then address the issues of his own time and be truly renewing. Someone who did this in an exemplary way is, of course, Abraham Kuyper. With his Neo-Calvinism he succeeded in making a big contribution to the development of our country and especially to the Reformed part of our people. Just like Calvin, he was a real innovator. The term ‘petty bourgeois’ that is nowadays often applied to Calvinists in a pejorative fashion (in the sense of being narrow minded), with Kuyper, of course, had a totally different ring to it as it applied to a socio-economic group in society and had a strongly emancipating connotation.

I consider Calvinism to be an indispensable and renewing force in Dutch politics today in two main points. These are: 1) working for an involved and engaged society and 2) the reinforcement of morality as the sheet anchor of the economy.

The Engaged Society

First, I will discuss the engaged society. There is in Calvinism, as I have mentioned before, a strong emphasis on individual freedom with respect to the state and other earthly institutions. Therein, Calvinism has a certain similarity with liberalism. Unlike liberalism, however, Calvinism gives a direction to this freedom. It is not only about the freedom of, but also about the freedom to: the acquired liberty is not to be used for the interest of self alone, but is to be seen in the light of responsibility before God and one’s fellow man. This means that man is not only to work to sustain himself, but that he is also to share his wealth with someone who cannot sustain himself. Making an effort for the ill and needy and for the refugees is a matter of justice. One is not to turn away in indifference saying: “This is not my problem”, when one sees that someone else is not doing well. This is not being patronizing or nosy, but is an expression of being responsible for, and involved with, the other person. In the context of a political climate that is dominated by the dogmas of self determination and an excessive, but selective, ideal of freedom (which has, by the way, far less to do with tolerance than the confessing members of the liberal congregation would have us to believe), Calvinism presents itself as a renewing force. Though Calvin may have been a staunch man, his compassion for his fellow man can be clearly pointed out in his letters and works.

This idea of an involved, engaged society has its influence in the Calvinist view of the task of the government. Foremost, government creates the essential pre-conditions in which individuals, families, churches, schools, enterprises and other associations can freely develop. The sovereignty within one’s own sphere is to be safeguarded. This freedom is not unlimited, however: When these associations turn out not to be up to their responsibilities, there is then reason to intervene. Recently, we have seen this in the financial sector. Or, we can think of the checks on Islamic schools when they cross legal boundaries, or the discussions about intervening in families when children are being abused or neglected. This is characteristic of a government that is led by the motive of public justice and is concerned for the wellbeing of all its citizens. It is important to note that interventions of the government should, as much as possible, be temporary and be aimed at restoring the strength and authority (‘sovereignty’) of the family or enterprise. We will resell these banks as soon as we can; we will return children to their families as soon as it is safe again to do so.

It is this nuanced thinking about liberty and the involvement of citizens and the involved, but limited, role of the state that is indispensable as a counterforce both against an overestimation of the possibilities and authority of the state to interfere in the liberties of citizens and their associations and against an underestimation of the same. In other words, fully Calvinist or Christian-social politics guards itself against the extremes of both high-strung state socialism and hyper-individualist liberalism.

Reinforcement of Morality

I will now discuss my second main reason of speaking of Calvinism as an indispensable and renewing force today. And that is that our market economy needs a renewed supporting morality. The economic crisis that we are in today underlines this. For even though the crisis is partly due to structural shortcomings in the free market economy, such as oversight and regulation that did not keep up with the rapid developments in the financial markets, it should now be clear to everyone that the crisis encompasses more than merely a temporary stagnation of the system of the financial markets. There is a correlation between the financial crisis and the environmental crisis, the climate crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis. And if we take into account that these crises are not ‘Naturnodwendigkeiten’ [a German term for strict necessities that follow from the nature of things JT], but follow from the choices and conduct of people, then it becomes clear that these crises confront us with questions of a cultural and moral nature. In our western culture we have forgotten how to live within boundaries of moderation. This then creates a culture of dissatisfaction and discontent. Some authoritative economists are speaking of the “institutionalization of greed”. So, we can speak today of an erosion of principles and values. For example, the principle that steady and sustainable development of a company is better than big profits in the short term. Or, the principle that credit is not to be given too easily, but that there has to be a decent value at the other end. Or, the principle of profit as a fair reward for the capital invested in stead of profit maximization in the short term. In other words, we live – in the words of Herman Wijffels – in more than one way beyond our means and we will not be content with the boundaries that are a part of reality. And, not to the surprise of those who have read Calvin, the victims are the poorest and most vulnerable on our planet. So such a culture causes injustice and sustains it.

In 2009 we shall have to enter upon new roads so as to lead the exploded casino-capitalism to a socially sensible market economy. What we can learn from Calvinism in this respect is that a healthy economic development cannot be achieved separately from a moral foundation. Calvinism provided such a religious and ethical-cultural foundation, and, in that, it provided a moral anchor.

Do not get me wrong: I am by no means saying that this crisis could not have happened if we in the West had all been reading Calvin. That would be out of place and un-historic. I am saying that history and modern theorizing on ethics and economy show us that morality benefits us in the long run. So, as of old, the minister and the merchant can shake hands in this conversation on the future of the economy!

Proud of Calvinism

I will conclude. The recognition that Calvinism is relevant yesterday and today is not something exclusive of orthodox-protestant believers. I hope to have convinced you that Christians, social-democrats and liberals - and not to forget the Muslims too - all have something to learn from Calvin. Let us this year, as a tribute to him, delve further into what he and other Calvinists have had to say about politics, the economy and an engaged society from their sturdy principles.

Quite contrary to my Calvinist nature, I will risk making a prediction here: I predict that in the course of 2009 the Netherlands will become a little proud of Calvin. And once we have reconciled ourselves with Calvin, then maybe we will start loving ourselves and our country a bit more. Then, we will cast out the demons of Dutch self-rejection and put our backs into it together. “Working together, living together”,¹ actually quite a Calvinist motto!!

Thank you very much for your attention.

Translation by Jonathan van Tongeren (youth editor Christian in Politics Portal)

Photo: Marie Cecile Thijs

¹‘Working together, living together’ (Samen werken, samen leven) is the motto of the current government in the Netherlands.

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

Health Care With Dignity

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:47:19 +0100

‘The fundamental goal in reforming our nation’s health care system should be the dignity of the human person.’

The health care system in the United States delivers some of the best care in the world. Wealthy patients from around the globe travel here to receive advanced, high-tech medical treatment. Yet when measured against other developed nations, we trail dismally by several measures including the rate of infant mortality. More than 47 million Americans lack health insurance, and researchers estimate that more than a third of our national spending on health care is wasted on medical errors, unnecessary procedures, overuse of emergency rooms, and the like.

Our system is in desperate need of comprehensive reform. Some on the left are pushing for “Medicare for all,” or at least a public insurance option alongside private insurance. Some on the right insist that market competition is the only way to bring rising health-care costs under control.

Missing from most of the debates is a thoughtful discussion of our responsibility as a society to respect and nurture human dignity. Clearly, affirming the dignity of all Americans requires that all have access to quality health care. But merely providing Medicare-type benefits will not guarantee a healthier society. Providing insurance without ensuring access to a physician or hospital will not help rural patients who need ongoing care. Subsidizing health insurance without encouraging patients to take responsibility for their own health may actually subvert human dignity—a phenomenon that has been well documented in the welfare debate.

Patients must have an ownership stake in their own health. Research has long demonstrated that lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise have significant impacts on the prevention and care of diabetes and heart disease, which together affect more than 36 million Americans. Policy reforms should encourage patients to value their own health and provide incentives to practice healthy behavior as a means of affirming individual dignity and responsibility as well as managing costs in the system as a whole.

Patients should be free to choose physicians based on quality and price without having to wait for months for an appointment. Although the Medicaid program provides health benefits for millions of Americans, it has, through a series of unintended consequences, undermined the dignity of the patients it seeks to serve. Currently, Medicaid patients have to wait weeks or months to get an appointment with a primary-care physician or specialist. Many physicians refuse to see Medicaid patients altogether. Those with Medicare or private insurance enjoy better access, including lower wait times. Those with Medicaid are often treated as second-class patients. In providing access to health care for the 47 million uninsured, we must not repeat the insults to human dignity incurred in the Medicaid program.

Sustainable health reform must also consider the dignity of medical professionals and the conditions under which they practice. Reform that continues the trend of making providers more accountable to the government or to insurance providers than to their patients distorts this service-oriented profession by trying to force it into the mold of a bureaucracy.

The payment system should also be reformed so that providers are reimbursed for coordinating patient care rather than for the number of patients they see. Serious attention should be given to increasing the numbers of providers, particularly in underserved areas. Health reform that marginalizes physicians will not solve the long-term medical workforce crisis.

Wise stewardship should also serve as a governing principle throughout the debate. But Congress should never lose sight of the fact that the fundamental goal in reforming our nation’s health care system should be the dignity of the human person.

—Michelle C. Kirtley, Ph.D.

Health Policy Adviser Congressman John Fleming, M.D. (R-LA)

Publication: april 2009

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

Christian Democracy in the Global Village of the 21st Century

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:19:46 +0100

This paper considers the core of Christian democratic politics, it focuses on some main issues for Christian politicians. All this issues are related to the central issue: public justice. This paper is a clear and convincing overview in what ways Christian politicians can contribute to serving public justice in their societies.

It is a great privilege for me to have this opportunity to address you on the subject of Christian democracy in Europe. The United States still does not have such a movement, and we stand in great need of one. You are leading the way and providing great encouragement to those of us outside Europe who are trying to develop Christian-democratic movements. Furthermore, you are revitalizing a movement in countries where most of the original Christian-democratic parties have lost their distinctively Christian identity. Therefore, with many Christians in the Americas, Asia, Africa, and the Pacific, I thank the Lord that he has called you to this responsibility of renewing and advancing Christian politics at the beginning of the 21^st century.

The need for mature Christian political service is urgent. The fact that religions are the deepest compelling motives of human life, including political life, is increasingly apparent everywhere. In the last forty years we have all been witnesses to the growing influence of Islam and particularly of radical Islamism at the same time that Christianity is growing throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Only those still gripped by the myth that modern rationalism will lead to the demise of religion can fail to understand today’s global dynamics. And what is also clear today, if it was not obvious earlier, is that Fascism, National Socialism, Communism in its many guises, and every form of ideological nationalism all function, to some degree, as substitute religions, as false religions. This is certainly true of our civil-religious nationalism in the United States.

There could not be a more urgent time than now for the exercise of mature Christian political action, regardless of the odds against it. Christians need to expose modern political ideologies for what they are while also repenting of the sins of ancient and modern crusaders who have tried to advance Christianity by force and at the expense of others. The apostle Paul urged us to seek to live at peace with everyone insofar as it is in our power to do so (Rom. 12:18). Jesus called on his followers to be like their Father in heaven who gives rain and sunshine to the just and unjust alike (Matt. 5:45). It is not the responsibility of Christ’s disciples to pull up the tares in the wheat field of God’s world. Instead, we must leave every form of final judgment in God’s hands (Matt. 13:24-30, 37-43). The biblical witness calls Christians to a responsibility of seeking the political well-being and equal treatment of everyone—of all our neighbors. This requires a politics of service in response to God’s call to do justice—a justice measured by God’s own mercy, patience, and gracious care of a world in which his rain and sunshine fall on everyone alike. The first and most distinguishing reason for a Christian political movement, then, is the witness it bears to the Creator and Redeemer of the world by the way it works to do justice to everyone in public life. It is in this spirit that I am thankful to be with you on this occasion.

You have invited me to comment in particular on the document you are drafting titled “A Christian-Social Contribution to Europe,” and I am delighted to do so. It is a strong statement that deserves hearty endorsement and implementation. It can be of great encouragement and influence both here and outside of Europe.

Go to top

The Preamble

The political context in which you are working to bring forward a Christian perspective on politics and government is not entirely unique to Europe. The quest for individual autonomy coupled with faith in technocratic solutions to economic and social problems also drives our pragmatic politics in the United States as it does increasingly in many parts of the world. And yet, as you point out, problems continue to multiply faster than solutions. Millions of relatively free people do not enjoy the freedom they have, and billions of people do not even have freedom from hunger. Moreover, citizens in many of our countries increasingly distrust their political leaders because those leaders have promised so much and delivered so little. Environmental degradation, starvation, disease, social antagonism, and warfare make a mockery of the modern faith that humans can create their own freedom, prosperity, and happiness. Consequently, instead of experiencing deeper human solidarity throughout the world, we experience growing tensions among different religious, ethnic, and national groups.

This is not what God created us for, but it is the consequence of our human effort to try to shape the world and human society in defiance of God’s purposes and standards for us. Our obligation to love and serve God above all, as good stewards of one another and of the whole creation, is an obligation to love and do justice to our neighbors. Therefore, as your draft document points out, the Christian religion cannot be only a private, individual matter. The Christian way of life has a public character, which has everything to do with the exercise of our civic responsibilities. This does not imply that governments should try to compel adherence to the Christian faith or provide privileges to Christians in violation of the political common good. Your statement makes this clear and I agree with it entirely as a matter of Christian principle, not as a matter of merely accommodating ourselves to the Enlightenment’s restricted ideal of tolerance.

A second distinguishing feature of a Christian-democratic approach to politics, then, is the recognition of God-given normative standards that guide our shaping of society and government. Humans are not the autonomous creators of society, free to disregard God’s norms of justice, love, and good stewardship.

I would encourage you, then, to emphasize that it is God’s normative standards and merciful patience that call us and enable us to do justice and that hold us accountable at all times and in all places. Christians themselves do not always respond obediently to God’s call to do justice in shaping their political systems even in societies that have a Christian heritage. In the United States, Christianity is thoroughly mixed up with an American civil-religion that generates pride, arrogance, and pretentiousness, often leading to the violation of Christian social principles. Moreover, in many countries throughout the world, there has been little if any Christian heritage. Nonetheless, God also calls those governments to do justice, and Christians in those countries also need to discover how to help shape a more just political order. Therefore, you might say at the end of the document’s Preamble, “Hence, followers of Jesus Christ bear a responsibility to challenge what is unjust and to help shape a more just social and political order in the countries of Europe and among the nations of the world in accordance with Christian-social principles.”

Go to top

Christian Understanding of the Person

The next section on the human person is excellent and you might look for a way to emphasize the multi-generational character of “being made in the image of God.” That would deepen the meaning of the social character of our identity as God’s creatures bound to one another in service throughout our generations. It also helps to highlight the fact that human society extends beyond families, clans, and nations. Family life, as the document properly says later on, “is the cornerstone of society.” But my family or my nation can be absolutized or turned into an idol that keeps me from recognizing my mutual interdependence with, and obligation to serve, fellow human beings in other families and other nations around the world. Furthermore, the multi-generational character of the image of God throws a strong light on our obligation to our own grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will suffer the terrible consequences of our social, political, economic, and environmental sins, or who may benefit from our responsible actions today.

A third unique characteristic of a Christian-democratic approach to politics should be the treatment of every person anywhere in the world as a creature made in the image of God, as someone with the same dignity that everyone else has, a meaning and identity that should never be denied or trampled on in order to achieve human-created goals.

Emphasizing the multi-generational identity of the image of God is also essential if we are to understand the global character of the Christian community itself, made up of people from every tongue and nation. The deepest bond that should unite Christians around the world is our community in Christ in whom we are being restored by the power of the Holy Spirit into the true image of God. Your national and European (and my American) identities are secondary in that respect, even if our most immediate political responsibilities are found in the states of which we are citizens. A Christian-democratic approach to politics and government, therefore, is not something for Europeans only but something that Christians in states throughout the world should be developing as part of their response to God’s call to do justice. Christians, wherever they live, should be working to strengthen the kind of political solidarity that comes as a consequence of governments establishing public justice for the common good.

The fourth distinguishing characteristic of Christian-democracy, therefore, should be its global perspective and concern, motivated to achieve a Christian-democratic International. In this case, the International is not a union of workers, or of capitalists, or of greens, but a cooperation of Christian public servants seeking to do justice to all their neighbors in their respective states and through international institutions.

Go to top

Society and Government

Your stress on the “freedom and integrity of social and cultural institutions” could not be more important in face of the individualistic and totalizing ideologies that continue to dominate life at the start of the 21^st century. Political communities require the protection of individual rights and freedoms, to be sure, but there is more to human society than individuals protected by government. Political communities also require a public-legal solidarity that assures every citizen of distributive justice, but there is more to human society than political solidarity. Justice for individuals and for the political community can be upheld only if justice is done simultaneously to the social and cultural institutions that cannot be reduced either to contracts among individuals or to government departments and services. God, not government or free individuals, has created us with the responsibilities of family life, entrepreneurship, the arts and sciences, education, and more. These nongovernment responsibilities and related institutions must be recognized by governments and protected in public law.

The high importance of a Christian political movement, in the fifth place, therefore, should be evident from its unique, principled commitment to upholding the diverse social structure of society. Neither conservatives nor social democrats, neither totalitarians nor authoritarians are committed to such a purpose.

We in the United States especially need to hear what you’ve said about the economy, namely, that “the full personal, social and ecological implications of national and international market activity need to be recognized, instead of merely private or accounting calculations which do not totally take these implications into account. Inequitable and unfair patterns of distribution need redressing. Our emphasis,” you continue, “is therefore on the State’s concern with justice and right structures rather than economic performance alone.” We Americans pride ourselves on resisting big government and elevating freedom, but we typically overlook or reject the rich implications of social subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty (or diversified sphere responsibility), believing that market freedom will lead automatically to every social good. Moreover, around the world one can see that the pressures of market forces and technology are breaking down older systems of social solidarity, often without helping to build healthy, differentiated social patterns and strong political communities that can uphold their societies.

The sixth thing that is unique about a Christian-democratic program is its effort to uphold—all at the same time—economic justice, freedom of markets, and the protection of non-market responsibilities. There must be diversity and balance, freedom within the bounds of justice. Humans are complex, multi-dimensional creatures made in the image of God.

Let me turn now to the concluding section of your document with its seven guiding principles for Christian politics.

Go to top

Seven Guiding Principles

SOCIAL JUSTICE: Justice, as you say, does indeed demand a “special concern for the needs of the poor, refugees, those who suffer, and the powerless.” And yes, this means that “governments have a special responsibility for those who cannot support themselves in their our own countries and abroad.” Yet, as the document says later on, in the paragraphs on “active compassion” and “empowerment,” government does not stand alone as the only institution responsible for those in need. Consequently, as you say later, “The government should motivate individuals, families, charities and other associations to active compassion,” and, “We will encourage active participation between the State and voluntary providers of services.” Perhaps, then, you could strengthen your statement about “social justice” by saying that in order for government to play its proper role in upholding justice for those in need, it should always partner wisely with other institutions and organizations that also bear responsibility to care for people in need. In other words, government’s concern for those with special needs should not lead it to act in ways that undermine the responsibilities of families, friends, churches, schools, hospitals, and social-service agencies or else government will not be doing justice. Or to say it in a different way, government’s responsibility to uphold justice is different from the responsibilities of compassion ministries, social service organizations, and families. What you have articulated here underscores the fifth and sixth characteristics of a Christian-democratic politics that I just summarized.

RESPECT FOR LIFE: “The right to life is the most basic of all human rights,” as your document properly affirms. And this leads you not only to oppose indiscriminate abortion but also to call for government to protect those who are “infirm, mentally or physically disabled, elderly, or unable to speak for themselves.” In keeping with your first principle about social justice, you might then say in the next sentence, “Such respect for human persons requires the exercise of government’s careful partnership with nongovernment organizations and institutions to assure everyone of a decent quality of life and to meet the needs of those who do not have the essentials of life.” This underscores the unique Christian-democratic starting point that humans have been created in the image of God (see third point above).

In articulating this principle of respect for life you come closer than in most of the others to making policy proposals, such as prohibiting euthanasia and opposing the cloning of animals and humans. You might consider whether you could insert similar statements or policy suggestions at the end of the other six statements of principle.

PRIORITY OF THE FAMILY: The family is the “cornerstone of society,” as the document states, particularly because the family is the place where children are raised from complete dependence as infants to adult maturity. The home, as you say, is “where children should learn responsibility, values and the proper ways of living as responsible citizens.” Government’s encouragement and protection of children, therefore, should be demonstrated by upholding the responsibility of parents to care for their children, including the parental responsibility to choose appropriate schooling for their children without financial or legal discrimination by government. This is all part of government’s obligation to uphold—to do justice to—the diversified structure of society in which humans exercise many kinds of responsibility before God.

RECONCILIATION: Your statement is correct that working for reconciliation and healing is the responsibility of human persons in a wide variety of relationships and institutions. Since your document is primarily about political life and the responsibility of government, however, I think you can say more here. If it is government’s fundamental responsibility to uphold a just and peaceful society, then it must act to stop or restrain conflict and to promote reconciliation. Government, therefore, should make sure that various kinds of private and public reconciliation services are available to citizens. In some cases, government may have to require those in conflict situations to enter into a dispute-settlement process that is directed by a third party. All of this calls for the right kinds of police forces, judicial systems, and reconciliation services.

It is true, as you also say, that “humility, repentance, patience and forgiveness are political as well as personal values.” For this reason, strong court systems, independent arbiters, reconciliation boards, and fair elections are all needed to forestall conflict, promote reconciliation, and hold governments accountable. Furthermore, reconciliation is also a principle of justice for international relations. Reconciliation efforts are desperately needed today in many other parts of the world where violent conflicts rage. Yet reconciliation is also needed in non-violent conflicts over trade and other economic dealings among nations.

Your statement also says that the demands for reconciliation imply “a disavowal of all armaments whose use is incompatible with the pursuit of just peace.” Here you touch ever so lightly on the use of force, including military force, and I would encourage you to consider adding another statement of principle dedicated entirely to foreign and defense policies, international justice, and security. Your efforts need to have a definite orientation to these responsibilities of government.

I realize that in the European setting it may not be so easy to speak about a European foreign policy, since the European Union does not yet have an independent government authorized to conduct foreign and military affairs. It is also true that international relations among European countries are concerned largely with a federalizing process by peaceful means. Nevertheless, European countries do have police and military forces; many are members of NATO; many are playing a role in the Middle East and with countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. And even within Europe there are interstate security responsibilities. Thus, it makes sense that you should say something more about government’s responsibility for international as well as national security and defense.

With respect to all of these matters of retributive and restorative justice, security, and the just use of force, there is a seventh unique feature that should characterize Christian-democratic politics. It begins with the recognition that government does not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4) but also that government’s use of force to restrain violence and to protect the innocent must be highly controlled and accountable. The aim is not mere punishment but reconciliation where possible, and even repentance on the part of unjust governments.

WISE STEWARDSHIP: Part of what you have offered in the statement on “wise stewardship” is about the economy and government’s economic policies; another part of it is about environmental stewardship. It might be good to make two separate statements, one about the economy and the other about the environment. Let me add two further comments.

With respect to the environment, Europeans and Americans must increasingly take into account developments throughout the world that are aggravating environmental degradation. Americans, who are the greatest per capita users of nonrenewable energy, should be leading the way to the reduction of environmental damage. Together with the Chinese, the Indians, and others, Europeans and Americans need to work harder and faster, for the sake of all our global neighbors, to restrain irresponsible actions that are threatening the ecological health of God’s creation.

The importance of Christian-democratic politics in the world today is to show that humans are caretakers of God’s creation, not its masters. This should be the eighth distinguishing characteristic of a Christian political movement.

Second, in your statement about wise stewardship you conclude with a few suggestions of policy judgments, such as, “maintaining a sound currency against inflation,” discouraging dependence on the state welfare provision, and opposing gambling. You might also want to add a sentence in support of progressive tax policies; using taxes (as on gasoline) to put a premium on the conservation of nonrenewable resources; and perhaps supporting “employee stock ownership provisions” (ESOP) to give workers a greater stake in economic enterprises.

EMPOWERMENT: Your final paragraphs about the differentiation of authority in society emphasize empowerment. And the principles operative in your statement are those of subsidiarity and sphere responsibility. This is the principled basis for the fifth and sixth distinguishing features of a Christian-democratic approach to politics that I articulated earlier. I applaud your work and would simply stress that speaking about the distribution of power and responsibility at different levels—between “larger” associations and “smaller and more local associations” as the document reads—can sometimes be misleading, particularly in federal political systems like the United States and the European Union. To say, for example, that a certain kind of governmental responsibility should be exercised at the local level rather than at the national or European federal level makes sense with respect to the distribution of political power. But it says nothing about the difference between the responsibility of government, on the one hand, and the responsibility of nongovernment organizations like families, churches, and businesses, on the other hand. If a responsibility belongs to the family, for example, it does so not because the family is “smaller” or “more local” than a state or federal government, but because it is the family and not a department of the government. That is a matter of sphere responsibility, not subsidiarity. Therefore, the most important distinction to make is between the different kinds of responsibilities that belong to different spheres of life—family, church, media, civil society organizations, the state, and so forth. Only on that basis does the subsidiarity principle become clear, namely, that responsibilities within a state, or within the economic sphere, or within a university should be exercised at the proper level within that sphere. The main point is that humans have been empowered—given different kinds of responsibility—by God. Governments don’t provide the original empowering but have themselves been empowered by God to exercise their own responsibility.

Go to top

Conclusion

The urgency of Christian political service both in your countries and in other parts of the world could not be more clear. The special calling and place of Christian-democratic politics in Europe and throughout the global village can, I believe, be articulated in the eight points already made.

Such movements bear witness to the Creator and Redeemer of the world by the way they work to do justice to every neighbor.
They recognize God-given norms that hold humans accountable in public as well as in private life.
They recognize and treat every person in the world as made in the image of God, as someone with the same dignity that every other person has.
Christian-democratic movements should have a global perspective, motivated to cooperate across national boundaries for the common good of all.
They are committed to government’s protection of the diverse structure of society, upholding the variety of vocations and spheres of responsibility that humans exercise.
They are committed to economic justice as a condition of market freedom.
Christian-democratic politics recognizes the special responsibility of government to protect the innocent from aggression and to seek reconciliation in the midst of conflict. Retributive and restorative justice calls governments themselves to humility and repentance.
Christian political movements should be distinguished by the way they demonstrate environmental stewardship in their statecraft, working to be caretakers of creation in contrast to those who act as if humans are the sovereign masters of this world.

As you go forward in your efforts here in Europe may God give you wisdom, patience, and endurance. We will be watching and eagerly learning from you. Go forward in peace and in the strength of the Lord of peace.

Speech on the Congress of the European Christian Political Movement, December 6-7, 2006, Brussels

by James W. Skillen, Center for Public Justice

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.

"The people shall govern": now they have only the possibility to vote

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:45:41 +0100

This paper focuses on the role that is played by the church citizens in the development of good governance in a democratic South Africa. It argues first that the church played an important role in the struggle against apartheid and during the transition to the formation of a democratic government. However the first decade of democracy has seen the church retreating to denominational conclaves leaving a vacuum in the public or political arena.

It blames the tight control and centralization of government which makes it difficult for citizens and civil society organizations such as the church to participate. Then it calls for the church to consider active participation in the development of democracy and suggests ways of political engagement for the church in South Africa.

By: Simanga R. Kumalo
University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa

1. Introduction

One of the important components of development in any society is the building of a robust, people-centered democracy and good governance. The paper calls for the church to participate in the development of a culture of participation in the processes of building democracy in South Africa. As far as the North-South dialogue is concerned the paper seek to remind the North that the work of building accountable democracy in the South needs their assistance and participation much as they did during the struggle against apartheid. Churches, governments and civil society organizations from the North supported those who were fighting the system of apartheid by calling for sanctions against the South African government, holding demonstrations and rallies, and channeled financial resources to support the struggle through the churches and other civil society organizations. However the end of apartheid saw a gradual withdrawal of the North, on the grounds that since there is democratic governments in South Africa, civil society do not need their support anymore.[1] The paper will demonstrate that the South still needs to be supported in the development of democracy and good governance, which is still at an infancy stage, but needs to be built to maturity.

Through the evolution of South African society, church-state relations have moved through four ‘generation’. From 1652 to1800, the period of the arrival of the settlers and the Dutch Reformed Church, the relationship was characterised by an uncritical acceptance of the state by the church. The church and the state were one and the same thing (De Gruchy, 2004: 1). From 1801-1911, after the British took control of the Cape and established the Natal Colony, and the Boer Tekkers established their own independent republics (Transvaal and Oranje Vrystaat), church-state relations can be described as critical acceptance. This was a period where missionaries, especially those from English-speaking churches such as Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterian and Congregationalists proliferated in the Cape and some were critical of both the Colonial government and the church. They were also critical of the Boer republics and their racist laws (Elphick, & Davenport, 1997:51). Familiar names here include John Phillip, George Schmidt, van der Kemp, and Barnabas Shaw. Linked to this was the growth of educated black Christians who were starting to play a pivotal role in both the church and wider society calling for the recognition of black people’s rights. This included leaders such as Tiyo Soga, Nehemiah Tile, John Tengo Jabavu, and Mangena Mokone.

Following the Union of South Africa (1910), church-state-relations from 1912-1960 can be described as ‘critical opposition’ because at this time some sections of the white churches and the majority of the black churches began to resist the government’s policies which intentionally excluded black people from decision-making structures of the country, and in particular the 1913 and 1936 Land Acts. It was during this period that black missionary educated leaders such, Pixley-ka Isaka Seme, Z.K. Mathews, John Dube, Charlotte Maxeke, Walter Rabusana, and Z.R. Mahabane, formed the African National Congress, mobilized black people against government, and organized marches and prayer rallies to oppose the state. The critical opposition intensified when in the 1930s the Council of Churches of South Africa (CCSA) organized conferences to conscientize churches about the unjust policies of government that needed to be resisted. This was to continue to 1949 when the Nationalist government showed determination to implement its policies of separate development (De Gurchy, 2004 :). From 1961-1990 the church state relations can be understood as resistance. This was defined by the outcomes of the Cottesloe Consultation, the work of the Rev. Bayers Naude and the Christian Institute, the growth of the initiatives such as Black Consciousness Movement, (BCM) Black Theology, The Message of the People of South Africa, the banning of the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the Programme to Combat Racism (PCM). In summary the pattern of the church-state relations in South Africa can be seen as:

1652-uncritical acceptance
1800-critical acceptance
1911-critical opposition
1960-resistance
1990-critical solidarity

The changes brought about by the last apartheid government led by F.W. de Klerk in 1990 ushered in a new type of church-state relationship, which developed over the next four years to formally emerge as “ critical solidarity’ following the democratic elections in 1994, and the election of the ANC as the governing party. “Critical solidarity” means that the church supports those government initiatives that promote justice, peace and democracy whilst continuing to protest against unjust policies and protecting the interest of the poor and minority groups (Villa- Vicencio, 1992: 27). This mode of engagement was formalized in 1994 at an SACC conference in Veernaging where churches described the relationship to the state in a democratic South Africa in this way.

In the light of this history and of the shifting relationship between the church and the state, this essay seeks to answer the question, How can the church contribute to the development and consolidation of a democratic political culture in post-apartheid South Africa? The key term is democracy, which in this essay is understood as “a system of government where values essential for a way of life are characterized by an equality of opportunities for all, respect for the dignity and rights of everyone and freedom from suppression” (Cloete, 1993:186). By the term ‘church’ in this paper we are referring both to formal denominations and to the ecumenical movement representing these different denominations, and particularly in our case study to the Kwa-Zulu Natal Christian Council (KZNCC). We will focus on aspects that affect South Africa democracy such as political apathy, lack of participation, collapse of socio-ecclesial analysis and the need for the development of a contextual theology of democracy specifically in the context of Kwazulu-Natal.

The reason we are focusing on Kwazulu Natal is because that is the context in which we work in the Religion and Governance Programme, which forms the case study of this essay. My dialogue partner is Dr. Douglas Dziva who is the director of the Kwazulu Natal Christian Consortium; a coalition of five faith-based organizations spread throughout the province of Kwazulu Natal. Douglas is a Zimbabwean and has a PhD in Religious Studies. He is also the co-founder of the Religion and Governance Programme. His role in the paper has been that of an informant and dialogue partner since we are both interested in issues of religion and governance. Together we have planned workshops on this topic, facilitated and then evaluated them. He is concerned with the political and economic situation in Zimbabwe and argues that had the church played an effective role the democratic processes in Zimbabwe perhaps it would have averted the catastrophe of President Robert Mugabe’s dictatorship. The nature of this topic requires that we also engage in a dialogue with other disciplines such as politics, development studies, social sciences and life sciences.

The foundational motivation for the church’s involvement in the consolidation of democracy is based on the quest for a system that approximates the principle of governance in God’s household (oikos) where justice, peace, dignity and equality are upheld (Ephesians 2:19). Democracy is one historical system through which the quest for good governance has been expressed. The mission of the church is to introduce the reign of God on earth that brings about shalom with all its attributes. It is the people’s quest for peace and life in its fullness that compels it to be involved in matters of democracy and good governance. Then the church has an important role to play empowering people to participate in processes that lead to democracy and enabling them to protect their and other people’s intrinsic rights. According to the latest national statistics Hendricks, J and Erasmus, J have observed that more than 79% South Africans profess to be Christians, (JTSA, 121, 96, 2005) which means that the church in South Africa reaches all sectors of society and has the potential to mobilize more people than any other social movement in the country.

Following this introduction, the paper comprises four main sections. First, we start by examining the role played by the church during the transition period from apartheid to democracy. Second, we discuss the Religion and Governance Programme, which forms the case study for this paper. Then we explore the possible reasons for the lack of participation of the church in the development of democracy in South Africa. Fourth, we identify the obstacles and propose practical strategies that need to be embarked upon by the church.

2. The shifting of paradigms: from resistance to assistance.

When the National Party government realized that they were not winning the war against the resistance to apartheid, they embarked on a dramatic change of direction. In August 1989, P. W. Botha was forced to resign, and F. W. de Klerk took over as State President (De Klerk, 1998:149). Widely regarded as a verligte (enlightened one) within the Afrikaans community, De Klerk was a member of the Gereformeerde Kerk (Doperkerk) and a son of a former National Party leader (De Gruchy, 2004:206). In February 1990 he shook the country and the world by announcing the imminent release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. The unbanning of the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan African Congress (PAC) and other political organizations followed this. Although the activist-church appreciated the changes, they were too dramatic for her because she was caught unprepared. For a long time the church had been the site of the struggle against the state and its apartheid policies. As John Allen observed.

Church pulpits and assemblies provided an unrivaled array of platforms at a time when few others were available in the black community (Allen, 2006:233).

She was then faced with the challenges of finding a way forward and an appropriate theology for the ministry as the new socio-political and economic conditions were taking shape. A number of church leaders became involved as mediators between the negotiating parties. They also took part in peacekeeping efforts in the townships that were engulfed by political violence at the time (De Gruchy, 2004:206). Some theologians called the church to change its involvement strategies with the government from “a prophetic no to a yes,” and from resistance to assistance (De Gruchy, 2004: 26). For instance Charles Villa-Vicencio noted that:

The challenge now facing the church is different. The complex options for a new South Africa require more than resistance. The church is obliged to begin the difficult task of saying ‘Yes’ to the unfolding process of what could culminate in a democratic, just and kinder order (1992:27).

The ANC and its alliance partners had the prerogative of leading the negotiation process. The churches were fully involved in this process; church leaders opened the negotiation process with prayers and organized a number of prayer rallies throughout the country. At the same time as the ANC was involved in the negotiations with the National Party there was ‘black on black violence’, fuelled by a number of key points of disagreement between the ANC and another black led organization, the Inkatha Freedom Party (Temkin 2004:140). As a response to the conflict church leaders such as Archbishop Emeritus, Desmond Tutu, Bishop Stanley Mogoba, Mvume Dandala and others got involved in intervention strategies, such as reconciliation conferences and facilitating the negotiation processes between government and the liberation movements.

The church in SA saw a need to organize a conference where they could discuss ways of cooperation and overcome the divisions they had forgive, reconcile and find a way-forward. This conference was convened by the SACC in Rustenburg in November 1990 bringing together 230 participants representing 97 denominations and 40 church associations, as well as ecumenical agencies such as Diakonia and the Institute for Contextual Theology and others (Chikane & Alberts 1991:140). The main aim of the conference was to foster reconciliation in South Africa and to forge a way forward in the ministry of the church after apartheid (Chikane & Alberts, 1991:10). A further key aim, as noted by Frank Chikane was “an attempt to work towards a united Christian witness in a changing South Africa (Chikane & Alberts, 1991:10).” The outcome of the Rustenburg Conference was a document whose aim was to form the basis for the process of reconciliation and healing for South Africa. Amongst the points that were agreed upon in the Conference and were in the document were the following:

The unequivocal rejection of apartheid as a sin
The recognition that the conference had met at a critical time of transition, which held out a promise of reconciliation and Christians were called to be a sign of hope from God, and to share a vision of a new country.
There was a need for repentance and practical restitution for God’s forgiveness and for justice as a preparatory step of reconciliation.
The victims of apartheid were remembered with sorrow, while tribute was paid to those who resisted it (Walshe, 1992:140).

The importance of the Rustenburg Declaration is that it laid a foundation on which the church could build its relations with the state in a democratic South Africa. The elections were held on the 27^th April 1994. Thousands of clergy and Christian lay leaders were trained to work as election officials and monitors. As already noted above when the democratic government was installed its relationship with the church was understood as “critical solidarity”. Commending the church for the contribution it made during the period of transition Nelson Mandela noted that:

This you did not as outsiders to the cause of democracy, but as part of society and eminent prophets of the teachings of your faith (Asmal, 2003: 326).

It is therefore not surprising that a recent social survey by a national research organization discovered that the church is the most trusted institution in South Africa for 81% of the population (Pillay, 2006:32).

3. The church’s retreat to denominational conclaves

After introducing Nelson Mandela as the newly elected President of a democratic South Africa on the stairs of the Union Building in April 1994 Bishop Desmond Tutu exclaimed, “Now I am going back to the church to do the real business of the church and leave politics to those well qualified to do it” (Challenge, 22 June, 1994). Coincidentally when Bishop Manas Buthelezi a proponent of black theology and former president of the SACC spoke in his farewell function in 1997 at the Jabulani Amphitheatre in Soweto he said, “Now I am going to serve the real church” (Challenge, 13 October, 1998). Some prominent church leaders followed this position and shifted from involvement in public issues to concentrate on ecclesial matters, leaving politics to politicians. Whilst at the same time some joined government as important leaders of departments and commissions. The churches that retreated to denominational conclaves were mostly mainline churches, whilst paradoxically the charismatic groups moved into the centre as they opposed government’s policies on moral issues such as abortion and same-sex relationships. Although there is no empirical evidence that the statements by the two theologians of the struggle led to the church’s withdrawal from the public sphere, they do however give us a window on the dominant thinking by church leaders on church –state relations in a democratic South Africa.

As we complete this essay at the start of 2007 it is now twelve years since South Africa became a democratic country and there has indeed been a dramatic shift of ground for the church’s involvement in public issues. Mainline churches have by and large either retreated to their denominational conclaves or key leaders have moved into government posts as officials. Pentecostal denominations which used to be apolitical during apartheid have taken center stage by engaging government in support of the policies of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), particularly on domestic or individual moral issues such as abortion, capital punishment and opposition to rights for gays and lesbians (Balcomb, JTSA, 118, 149. 2004).

At the same time the past twelve years has seen the consolidation of democracy, a consolidation that has brought a number of benefits to most of the South African people by reversing the legacy of apartheid. Democracy has brought possibilities such as the right to vote, justice, equal rights, economic empowerment, housing, water and electricity for citizens and ultimately a constitutional democracy and a protection of human rights. However the new democracy is challenged by social and development problems such as increasing poverty levels, a growing gap between the rich and poor, and the scourge of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As a result the phase of euphoria and celebration has dissipated (De Gruchy, 2004: 207).

Poverty and the lack of employment opportunities are a reality for a majority of people in the country. In the midst of these contradictions and disappointment, people have been asking questions about the whereabouts of the prophetic church and its prophets. The slowness of the church in engaging the government on a variety of issues such as poor service delivery, the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe, the silence of the church on the rape charges against the former deputy president Jacob Zuma and rampant corruption has been questioned by a number of people both from within and outside. Aaron Mokabane a devout Christian and leader in the NGO sector lamented the lack of the church’s involvement by saying:

No one is voicing a dissenting view about holding public leaders accountable about their personal morality. In the book of the prophets in the OT, God abhorred all forms of idolatry, adultery and injustices. Why are the churches and Christian leaders quiet when public leaders are accused of not just indecent, but personal immoral acts? (Tloriso, 24^th October 2004).

People are wondering what has happened to the kind of position articulated by Frank Chikane, the then General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches (SACC) and now Director General in the Office of the State President, who in 1988 made a passionate statement about the church not to abandoning the active role it played against apartheid and must play it even in a democratic SA:

I am calling on the Church that we all stand up and say we will go to prison again; we will die again if any person gets victimized because of color, or for any other reason that contradicts our commitments to justice. And so our taking sides is vital, and I will go back to cell No. 20 in John Vorster Square (police station) if the ANC take over and practice injustices against other people…It is important that the Church of Christ say it now-we stood for justice and we will continue to do so in the new era that is coming. Even if we eventually have a legitimate system in South Africa the struggle for the ideals of the reign of God will not stop (1988:14).

The frustration from the grassroots has been growing and people have been feeling that the church in South Africa is in need of a strong prophetic leadership. One of the ways that the South African Council of Churches has sought to respond to this gap over the past ten years has been to strengthen the regional councils to encourage them to engage government from the local and provincial level. This process led to the formation of the Religion and Governance Programme in KwaZulu-Natal by the KZNCC, to which we now turn.

4. The Religion and Governance Programme

In the midst of questions about the role of the church in a democracy it was realized that there is lack of knowledge of the systems and structures of government amongst ordinary church members. The church did not know where and how to approach the state. The need to unpack and demythologize the system of government was observed so that all people especially those burdened with the leadership and prophetic responsibilities of the church can understand it. The KwaZulu-Natal Christian Council saw the need to start a project to help church leaders respond to this challenge from a theological perspective, and so the Theology and Democracy Programme (T&D) was started as a joint programme of the KwaZulu-Natal Christian Council Consortium[2] and the School of Religion and Theology, which is a school in the Faculty of Humanities located within the University of KwaZulu-Natal, a public university in South Africa.

This programme offers training in issues related to theology and democracy, and empowering church leaders in this area so that they can participate in the building of democracy both in the church and society (Kumalo, 33. 2005). Participants in the training programme must play a leadership role in their churches, e.g. ordained and lay leaders such as leaders of women and youth groups. After doing this work for four years with resounding success, a number of changes were made to strengthen the work. One key change was that the name became the Religion and Governance so as to allow it to reflect a bigger vision, which is not only to entrench democracy but good governance. Secondly the name change suggests that the programme serves not only the Christian church but also other religious groups (when required). It has four components in it referred to as projects: (i) Theology and democracy training; (ii) Symposia; (iii) Heroes of Hope, and (iv) Research and Publications.

5. Factors inhibiting participation of the church

Through the RGP Project we have been able to identify seven key factors that inhibit the church from participating in political issues, and thus in contributing to processes around democracy and good governance.

5.1 A Parliamentary democracy

One of the key criticisms leveled against the South African government has been its high level of centralization. It is so tightly centralized that it makes it difficult for other groups whether civil society, opposition parties and faith communities to engage with it or even to participate in it. The first person to raise these concerns was Archbishop Tutu when he delivered the Nelson Mandela lecture in 2005 at Wits University. The second observations about the lack of a robust democracy as a result of too much centralization of power came from one of the key members of the Tripartite Alliance (which includes the ruling party), the South African Communist Party (SACP). They argued:

It (the presidential centre) has sought to build a strong presidential centre within the state, in which the leading cadre is made up of a new political elite (state managers and technocratically-inclined ministers) and (often overlapping with them) a new generation of black private sector BEE managers/capitalists (Bua Komanisi, 1May 2006).[3]

The centralization of power and tight control of democratic processes was against one of the key principles of the freedom charter (manifesto of the ANC) that said “The People Shall Govern” (Polley, 1988:25). The question that needs to be asked today is, are the people really governing? Political theorist Xolelwa Mangcu argues that they are not governing but instead they just follow the elected leaders. He argues, “Many of the former activists in South Africa have found that they have to go along (Calland & Graham, 2005:72).” The majority of South Africans hoped for a decentralized government built on the basic foundations of direct democracy as propagated by the early philosophers such as Jean Jacques Roseau and Thomas Jefferson. However Mangcu blames the centralization of government upon the negotiation process and its approach and pacts. He said:

While the political transition itself was the result of mass mobilization in the township and villages of this country, the negotiations for democracy were at times, a secretive affair, the outcome of which hinged on the bargaining skills of the leaders of the various political parties, mainly the ANC and the National Party (2005:74).

The same observations are made by Richard van der Ross in his book African Renaissance and Democracy. He asserts that:

Even today, most South Africans, of whatever color, do not consider that they can do much, if anything, about influencing the law, let alone change it. They go to the polls once in five years, cast their vote for a party, and leave the rest to the politicians. If things go wrong, this is blamed on government, but they, the citizens, feel they can do nothing about it until the next election, especially as, under the system of Proportional Representation, they have no immediate contact with or recourse to a Member of Parliament to act as local sounding-board for their complaints or opinion (2004:24).

As a result democracy in South Africa has been labeled as a ‘Parliamentary Democracy’ where the elected representatives run the government on behalf of the masses (Bua Komanisi, 24 May 2006). Then they wait for delivery of services as promised and so the government is seen as a delivery mechanism not a system of participation in the governance of the country. In the words of Peter Vale it is no longer a “living democracy” (Calland & Graham 2005:13). K Fayemi points to the problem with this when he notes: “when we the people withdraw our trust in leaders or discountenance politicians, we make our democratic institutions less effective and risk making ourselves ungovernable”. Fayemi goes on to argue that:

Real leadership ought to involve motivating people to solve problems within their own communities, rather than reinforcing the overlords of the state over its citizens, and to build and strengthen political institutions that can mediate between individual and group interests (2006:56).

Linked to that is the fact that black governments tend to shun the involvement of the church in politics. George Moyser in his book Politics and Religion observed that:

The black state on the other hand is everywhere almost as impatient of church interference in politics as was its white predecessor (1991:186).

The church is confronted with the question of how it can penetrate, analyze and influence this impenetrable and quarantined form of government with its principle of participatory governance as displayed in governance in God’s household.

5.2. Lack of a theology of democracy

During the struggle against apartheid there was an abundance of liberation theologians that helped the church with theological frameworks when doing their socio economic and political analysis work. During the early years of transition the government had a negative attitude towards theology seeing it as of no value in comparison to science and other disciplines (SABC, 16 June 2000) necessary to the building of a new society. This led to a closure of theological faculties and a mass departure of theologians to other fields such as government and private sector. Archbishop Tutu has argued for a theology that will propagate the church’s involvement in politics. He said that:

If we say that religion cannot be concerned with politics, then we are really saying that there is a substantial part of human life in which God’s writ does not run. Religion is not a form of escapism. Our God does not permit us to dwell in a kind of spiritual ghetto, insulated from the real life out there. Out God is not a God who sanctifies the status quo. He is a God of surprises, uprooting the powerful and unjust to establish His Kingdom (in Sparks, 2006:295).

These are sinews of a theology of democracy that must be developed by the church, to guide its involvement in the political life of a democratic South Africa. For the past eleven years the church has been searching for a theology of democracy, but how can you get that if you are not doing any political theological reflection? Linked to the above was the discarding of theologies of liberation such as liberation theology, black theology, and African theology as redundant. It was common in South Africa to hear theologians of struggle saying, ”The time of liberation theology is over, we no longer need black theology”; or “Now we are one, we no longer need African theology because it is no longer clear who is and who is not an African in South Africa”. If you talk of black theology and African theology in South Africa today you get close to being accused of discrimination in reverse, or being seen as an angry black person who is still trapped in the theologies of the past. These theologies provided us with helpful theoretical frameworks that helped us to think critically. The discarding of these theologies without any proper replacement has left the church with very few resources as far as theological frameworks and tools are concerned. Only a few resources have been published in this area. These are John de Gruchy’s Christianity and Democracy, Paul Gifford’s African Christianity: Its Public Role (London: Hurst & Company 1988) and Isabel Phiri’s article on The Christian Nation and Democracy in Zambia (JRA, 33.4 2003)and Jesse Mugambi’s From Liberation to Reconstruction ( Nairobi, EAEP. 1995).

5.3. Lack of support from the international community

The international religious community especially churches and church-related organizations played a big role in encouraging and supporting the South African church to fight against apartheid. Their support came in the form of theological education which conscientized the church to be involved in the struggle and financial resources used for setting up initiatives necessary to combat racism. Since the demise of apartheid the international community has been withdrawing its support for the church, believing that because now there is now uhuru (freedom), there is no longer any need for the church to be actively involved in the political activities of the country. This is an oversight of the fact that democracy in South Africa is still at its infancy stages and needs the contribution of all sectors of society, including the church, to groom it to maturity. Thus the church needs all the support it can get from its partners especially those from the international community to play its part in the strengthening of democracy. The church in the North has lived and worked under matured democracies for a long time and can help the church in South Africa as it grapples with the ways of relating to its democratic state. The lack of support has made the church despondent and somewhat helpless as far as this task is concerned.

5.4. The spirit of comradeship

Another reason for the lack of a critical involvement of the church in public issues is the common history and friendships that those in government share with church leaders. Firstly many of the leaders in government have been involved in churches either as members, workers or activists through faith-based organizations such as the SACC, Institute of Contextual Theology (ICT), and Diakonia etc. This means they know the current leaders of the church at personal level. These people marched together, slept in prisons together, and were tortured together and even protected one another in the face of the brutality of the security forces. Thus those who remained in the church find it difficult to stand up and criticize their comrades who are now in government. They still believe in the good and commitment to the well being of all people that those old comrades once cherished and were prepared to die for. Archbishop Tutu echoed these sentiments when he lamented his own naivety with regard to this issue. He said

I must confess that I have been quite naïve. During the days of our struggle our people were magnificently altruistic. We had a noble cause and almost everyone involved was inspired by high and noble ideals. When you told even young people that they might be tear-gassed, hit with quirts, or have vicious dogs set on them, that they might be detained and tortured and even killed, there was a spirit almost of bravado as they said” So what? I don’t care what happens to me as long as it advances the cause”. My naivety was that I believed that these attitudes and exalted ideals would, come liberation, be automatically transferred to hold sway in the new dispensation. What a comprehensive let down- no sooner had we begun to walk the corridors of power than we seemed to want to make up for lost times. We succumbed to the same temptations as those others we had thought to be lesser mortals (Mail & Guardian, 23 August 2006)

It was perhaps due to this ‘naivety’ that Tutu made the statements we referred to earlier when he called for the church to go back to the real business of the church and leave politics to those better qualified in it. A number of church leaders have not yet come to realize this mistake, and they still believe in the bone fides of the political leaders. Thus they do not see the need to be vigilant, and they remain pathetic and fatalistic. One Methodist bishop once said to me “Simanga, it is very difficult to criticize your friends once they are in power; you sometimes wish somebody else can do it on your behalf” (Interview with Bishop Dlangalala, 14 June 2006).

5.5. The discrepancy between African modes of accountability and western forms of accountability.

Political accountability in modern democracies requires that the church and other elements of civil society must be watchdogs that will raise their voices when there is something wrong as a way of keeping leaders accountable to their constituencies. The methods of protest are expressed through public criticism of the individuals, sometimes to an extent of demonizing the individuals, calling them names, and calling for their dismissal. Most black African cultures (Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi, Venda, Sotho, Tswana etc) are built on a shame cultural norm. According to this, citizens do not criticize any person in public even if they are guilty because this involves adding shame upon them, instead of building or rehabilitating them. If any person has done something wrong especially if the person is a leader, it is expected that you will follow certain channels to call them to order and even punish them, without adding to the already destroyed moral conduct of the person by demonizing them in public. This kind of thinking is also in line with how the guilty are dealt with in scripture, especially in the New Testament when doing a literal reading of texts such as the women, caught in adultery (John 8:1-10), Zachaiaus (Luke), and the prostitute in the Pharisees’ house (Luke 7:37-50).

It is my opinion that most church leaders are struggling on a personal level to openly criticize political leaders because they are victims of this cultural upbringing. Even though they may join a crowd in protest, when it comes to a personal level, they struggle with how to deal with the question of guilt in the face of the shame situation that some leaders face. As a result they close themselves in their church issues instead of dealing with political issues that will require them to face leaders with a spirit of public criticism. Thus the cultural background of most black bishops contributes to this problem.

5.6. The tiredness of the church in struggling

There is a sense in which the church has grown tired of struggling. Most church leaders would like to move out of the public arena and limit ministry to activities such as preaching, counseling, visitations, preaching and visitations. As one pastor put it in the theology and democracy training.

I see the need for engaging government, mobilizing people to march for basic services such as water, electricity, lights etc. During the struggle I did that at the expense of the pastoral work, which I loved so much that I offered for the ministry. My hope was that in the new government we would not need to do those things. However I am disappointed to discover that even with the new government we still need to struggle. I no longer have the energy for that (Report 9 March 2006).

These sentiments are the same as the ones echoed by bishops Tutu and Buthelezi in earlier pages of this essay. This demonstrates a degree of ‘struggle-fatigue’ experienced by church leaders. This makes us aware of the need to reinvigorate the church with new energy so that it can participate in the struggle again.

5.7. Governance vs. democracy: It is not yet uhuru[4]

Governance can be understood as “the traditions and institutions by which decisions and authority are exercised” (World Bank Report, 2002:11). Participatory democracy seeks to develop the power and influence of all people especially the poor and marginalized in society through democratic political process that is characterized by participation, equality in dignity and rights, transparency and accountability. According to the World Bank report, good governance can be seen through 6 key dimensions which are: voice and accountability, political stability and the absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption (World Bank Report, 2002:11).

The relationship between governance and democracy is that democracy is one form of government that seeks to bring about good governance. However, the fact that a society has a democratic government in place does not guarantee good governance. As seen in South Africa, which has the most democratic constitution in the world, this has not brought economic development to all people; in fact the gap between the rich and poor is growing by the day. It has also not stopped the growth in poverty and the escalation of levels of corruption. The bigger vision that the church upholds is not of democracy but of good governance, which can be achieved through a system of democracy, but for it to do that it needs to be monitored and supported. The problem with the church is that the transition to democracy was taken as an achievement of good governance, whereas that was just a means to an end, not the end. More work still needs to be done.

6. Strategies of building good governance through the Religion and Governance Programme.

Now we turn to the second part of the discussion where we identify strategies to address the lack of participation of the church in public processes around governance. The question we are seeking to answer is “what practical strategies can the church apply to participate in the nurturing of good governance in South Africa?” The partnership between the academy and the local churches as displayed by the R&G Programme has shown itself to be a good way forward. The project helps the university to know the realities and experiences of people in real life situation as far as democracy is concerned. Reflecting on the work of the R&G Programme we have observed that the church can adopt a number of strategies for its involvement.

6.1. Education for responsible citizenship

There was a shift in the way the church related from the apartheid government to the democratic one. As we saw in the introduction to this paper, the key term is critical solidarity, which means that the church supports initiatives which promotes justice, peace and democracy whilst continuing to protest against unjust policies and protecting the interest of those vulnerable and minority groups. This means that a new approach to church-state relations needs to be developed which moves away from the dominant models in wich the church is either absorbed by the state or it regards the state as an enemy. Tinyiko Maluleke puts it this way:

We must move away from the two extreme models of church-state interaction: lapdog or cat and mouse (Ecumenical Consultation Report, 23-26 March 2003).

This means that we must encourage the state when it does good work and criticise it when there is a need. Echoing these sentiments, the Rev. Roxanne Jordan a proponent of liberation theology who later became the speaker of the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Council said:

The role of the church in the new South Africa is constructive engagement and critical solidarity (Interview, 18 July 2001).

The notion of ‘critical solidarity’ is built on the foundations of liberation theology and theologies of reconstruction, which continues the tradition of God’s preferential option for the poor. It also calls for obeying the laws of the country only if they are not contrary to the laws of God, (Acts 4:19, 5:29). The churches also base their participation on the text that says “The earth is of the Lord and all that is in it”, (Psalm 24:1) thus bringing congruence between ecclesial and societal issues. This includes an embrace of the liberal constitution that declared the country a secular state. Being a secular state means that South Africans are protected from both theocracy and atheism, whilst at the same time allowing religion to exist without any constitutional impediments (Villa-Vicencio, 1992:264). For this to be understood in the church there is a need for the church to embark on educating its members on responsible citizenship as part of the mission to the public sphere of society.

6.2. Cleaning our own house: Inculcating democracy in the church

If the church is going to call for democracy and good governance in society with credibility, then it faces the challenge of implementing democracy within its own structures. For an example, regarding gender and democracy, our analysis is that many churches and faith communities lag behind society in general in addressing patriarchal traditions and the transformation of their own unequal structures, policies and practices. Women and youth are under-represented in positions of leadership in the churches own governance structures. Therefore in the RGP programme the particular focus is aimed at transforming internal governance structures of the churches. For instance we state explicitly that churches must consider gender when choosing participants for the workshops. The intention is to help the church to see the importance of participatory democracy even in its structures. The curriculum itself has discussion on gender and church leadership. For the church to act prophetically and add value in a democracy it needs to take democracy within the churches themselves seriously.

6.3. Empowering the church to be a stakeholder of democracy.

Can the church claim neutrality and non-commitment when it comes to social issues? Theologically speaking there is no basis for the church to stand aloof from public issues. It has to be recognized that the church is in the world, although it is not of the world (John 16:10-15). One of the fundamental principles of African culture is the interconnectedness and holistic nature of life. Life cannot be separated between what is sacred and secular or between what is political and religious (Setiloane, 1986:33). From this perspective the church is an important stakeholder in the political processes in this country. However the church has to maintain relative autonomy. Whilst being conscious of the role it has to play in the political sphere as a stakeholder, it must maintain its uniqueness and autonomy from the state. The fact that in African traditional culture there is no difference between religious and political issues, but all people are expected to participate in governance in spite of the degree of their religiousness is an important approach for the church to adopt. There is a need for the church to draw from cultural resources for good governance found in African worldviews. The concept of umhlangano (public meeting) where issues are deliberated upon by all people, from diverse groups and stakeholders whilst they maintain their uniqueness is a helpful one in understanding the basis from which the church can engage the state.

6.4. Developing a theology of governance in, with and for the church

The pastoral responsibilities of the church include accompanying the newly established democratic nation through a crucial process of confession, forgiveness, healing, reconciliation, transformation and reconstruction (De Gruchy1995: 217). Through this the church can nurture a democratic culture. Good governance is possible and is “well exercised when it relies on local direction, knowledge and capacities (Shearing & Wood, 2005:106). The lack of participatory governance in the church is against the biblical understanding of governance in the household of God.

The facilitation of theology and democracy seminars and workshops models create a way for the church to draw from the theological traditions that emphasize the inherent right and ability to participate in policy and decision-making. True participation in governance in God’s household means “not participation in general, but priority is put on participation of the oppressed and marginalized people hitherto had been written off and pushed off to the periphery as mere pawns in the development arena”(Kobia, 2003:118). Understanding participation from this perspective means that we place greater significance on what is seen as peripheral, rather than what is seen as the center. It builds on liberation theology’s conviction of God’s preferential option for the poor and marginalized. This draws its basis from the biblical emphasis on marginalized and excluded people. In the process of doing a theology of democracy there is a need to pose particular questions that enable us to get to the heart of the issues. For an example Miguez Bonino suggested that we ask the question “How is God’s rule of justice-which is paradigmatically disclosed in Jesus Christ and destined to be the true future and the inescapable judgment of all political life- how is it mediated in the struggles of history? (Bonino, 1983:11).

Underlying the work of the RGP are the basic principles that all people are created in God’s image, therefore they are capable of influencing and shaping their lives and those of their brothers and sisters around them for the well being of all (Genesis 1:26).

A theology of governance is based on the church’s bigger vision which is good governance, which is measured by applying the principles in God’s household such as equality, justice, equal distribution of resources, community, belonging, dignity for all, participation, dialogue etc. This theology is already present both in literature and in the praxis of Christians as they live out their faith. What is needed is the intention to reflect on it, so that it can be discovered, brought to life through discussions and ultimately way of life of people. People like John de Gruchy and Charles Villa-Vicencio started writing about it in the early nineties. This is the theology that exists already but needs to be captured and shared widely. This theology will act as a compass that guides the churches’ involvement.

6.5. No Socio-ecclesial analysis no voice

Churches have relative autonomy from the state as well as the state towards the church. To move towards working together or challenging one another requires a rigorous process of analysis so that the reasons, issues and terms of cooperation or resistance can be seen clearly. This requires the church to do socio-ecclesial analysis. Analysis enables the church to see the issues that need to be contested or affirmed much more clearly from an informed position. This was confirmed by Itumeleng Mosala when speaking in the RGP convention in 2005 he said” no analysis no voice” (Report of Convention, 2005: 12). This means that the ability of the church to engage government lies in the amount of work it is going to do in socio-ecclesial analysis. Through the RGP reflections, research and socio-ecclesial analysis done by the churches and ecumenical structures have continued where churches and ecumenical structures look at specific issues in the post apartheid era. These issues include human rights issues, the rule of law, basic human rights, accountability, and transparency, delivery of basic services, and democracy in private and public space such as (family units, church, government, and business).

6.6. Strategic networks and partnership

The effectiveness of the church in fighting apartheid was through its partnership with other movements such as the United Democratic Front (UDF) and the, Black Consciousness Movement (BCM). This indicates that the idea of partnering and collaborating with other organizations committed to a common course can enable the church to make a contribution effectively. The strategic partnerships among the members constituting the consortium seek to ensure that the quality and quantity of civil society engagement with public duty bearers has increased and thereby contributed to a strengthened social contract between the state and citizens in Kwa-Zulu Natal.These networks and strategic partnerships provide a framework for multifaceted institutional cooperation as well as opportunities and channels for making linkages from the poorest citizens at community level to decision makers in local communities, provincial and national institutions. Among the critical questions include questions of how do churches and church-based organizations (CBOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) relate to one another so that they can engage government structures at local, provincial and national levels?

6.7. Multi-faith approach to church-state relations

The church can increase its strength through its collaboration with a number of civil society organizations that seek to address issues of common concern. Linked to the above, partnership with faith-based organizations requires that the church cross not only denominational lines but also multi-religious ones. Some of the churches (especially mainline) are members of the National Religious Leaders Forum (NRLF), which comprises representative from most of the religious bodies in the country and this forum also interacts with government. This has increased cooperation between the church and other religious groups especially when it comes to issues of common concern that they need to raise with government. However this cooperation has been effective only at the institutional and agency level, not at the local congregational or mosque level. This is made difficult by the fact that from its beginning as a nation South Africa has always been a Christian country. Generally South African Christians do not know how to relate to other faiths. Educational activities that will empower them to cross the religious boundaries are imperative. This must include the church’s willingness to repent for its dominance, ask for forgiveness and reconcile with members of other faiths such as Muslims, Hindus and African traditional religion who were marginalized by the church in the past.

7. Conclusion

The essay has argued for the church’s involvement in the contemporary struggles for democracy in South Africa. It has shown that the church can contribute in various ways in the development of a culture of democracy. This requires that it cooperate with government where necessary whilst at the same time standing firmly with the poor and marginalized. The future of the ministry of the church in a democratic South Africa depends on how it relates to and champions the course of the ordinary citizens. It needs to appreciate their aspirations, while restoring their hope and dignity by keeping the state and its representatives accountable to basic principles of good governance and democracy (Mugambi 1995:176). As it does that it will be responding to the words of George Washington who said that “the price to pay for democracy is eternal vigilance” (in Taylor 1988:344). The church must help citizens pay this price if democracy is to last in South Africa.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, J. 2006. Rabble-Rouser for Peace: The Authorized Biography of Desmond Tutu. London: Rider Books.

Asmal, K. (ed) 2003. Nelson Mandela: From Freedom to the Future. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Balcomb, T. Left, Right and Centre: Evangelicals and the Struggle for Liberation in South Africa, Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, March 2004, Number118

Bonino, M. 1983 Towards a Christian Political Ethics. London: SCM Press.

Bua Komanisi Information Bulletin of the Central Committee of the South African Communist Part Vol 5, Issue no 1, May 2006, 24.

Chapman, A. & Spong, B. 2003. Religion & Reconciliation in South Africa. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press.

Calland, R. & Graham, P. 2005. Democracy in the Time of Mbeki. Cape Town: IDASA.

Challenge Magazine, 13 October 1998

Challenge Magazine, 22 June 1994

Cloete, J.J.N. 1983. Democracy. Prospects for South Africa. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.

Chikane, F and Alberts, L. (eds) 1991. The Road to Rustenburg: the Church Looking Forward to a New South Africa, (Cape Town: Struik Christian Books.

Chikane, F. 1988. No Life of My Own: An Autobiography, Johannesburg: Skottaville.

Cloete, J.J.N. 1983. Democracy. Prospects for South Africa. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik.

Crawford. R. 1989.Journey into Apartheid. London: Epworth Press.

De, Gruchy, J. 2004. The Church Struggle in South Africa. Britain SCM: Press

De Gruchy, S. “Theological Education and Social Development.” Missionalia, (2002) 452.

De Klerk, 1998. F.W. de Klerk: The Last Trek a New Beginning. London: Macmillan

Elphick, R. & Davenport, R. 1997. Christianity in South Africa: A Political and Social Cultural History. Cape Town: David Phillip

Fayemi, K. Imperatives of Transition in Nigeria. New Agenda. Issue 23, Third Quarter 2006, 52-57.

Hendricks, J. & Erasmus, and J. Religion in South Africa: The 2001 Population Census Data. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa No 121, March 2005.

Kastfelt, N. 2005. Religion and African Wars London: Hurst & Company

Kobia, S. in Koegelenberg, R. 1995 The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) The role of the Church, civil society and NGOs. Cape Town: EFSA

Kumalo, S. Prophetic Christianity and Church-State relations after ten years of Democracy. Missionalia, 33:1 (April 2005) 99-110.

Longman. T. Churches and Social Upheavals in Rwanda and Burundi in Kastfelt, N. 2005 Religion and African Wars. London: Hurst & Company

Mail and Guardian, November 3, 2006.

Mail and Guardian August 23, 2006,

Mbeki, T. Umrhabulo Weekly Newsletter of the ANC, 3 November 2006.

Mokabane, A. Reflections on our Public life, email sent to friends and colleagues 24^th August 2006.

Moyser, G. 1991 Politics and Religion. London: Routledge.

Mugambi, JNK. 1995. From liberation to Reconstruction: African Christian Theology after the Cold War. Nairobi: E.A.E.P.

Pillay, U. (ed) 2006. South African Social Attitudes: Changing Times, Diverse Voice. Cape Town: HSRC Press.

Polley, J. 1988. The Freedom Charter and the Future. Cape Town: IDASA

Report of the Theology and Democracy Training, 9 March 2006.

Setiloane, G. 1986. Introduction to African Theology. Johannesburg: Skottaville

Shearing C. & Wood, J. 2005. Rethinking Citizenship & Governance in Urban South Africa in Curry, J. & Phillip, and D. Limitations to Liberation after Apartheid Cape Town: David Phillip.

Smit, D Oor die kerk as ‘n unieke samelewingsverband. Tydkrif vir Geesteswetenskappe 36 (1996) 2, 119-129.

Sparks, A. 2006. The Mind of South Africa, Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball:

Taylor, B.1988. Parting The Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Temkin, B. Buthelezi: A Biography, London: Frank Cass, 2003

Van der Ross, R. 2004. African Renaissance and Democracy: Can it Work Kenilworth: Ampersand Press.

Villa-Vicencio, C. 1992. A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation-Building and Human Rights Cape Town: David Phillip

World Bank. Worldwide Governance Indicators 2002, 11

[1] Even funding agencies from the North have withdrawn their assistance to many NGOs in South Africa, arguing that South Africa does not need it anymore. This has led to a collapse of many organizations that were doing sterling work for the poor where government has not yet been able to help.

[2] The Consortium comprises Pietermaritzburg Agency for Christian Awareness (PACSA), Kwa-Zulu Natal Christian Council (KZNCC,) Practical Ministries, and Diakonia. The School of Religion and Theology is also a partner. Theology and Democracy is sometimes referred to as T&D Programme.

[3] BEE refers to Black Economic Empowerment, a strategy aimed at balancing the economic inequalities by offering black people opportunities to own businesses.

[4] A Swahili word for ‘freedom’.good overnance, civil society, South Africa, churches

React on this article

You can react on this article after you log in at the top of this page. Please keep your reaction as minimized as possible. If you are not yet registered on this website, you can register here.