Christianity and Democracy Conference—Africa

March-April 1992

Christianity and Authority in Africa

By Kwame Bediako

ATLANTA, November 16,1991—Today the evidence is beyond doubt that the center of gravity of world Christianity has shifted from the West to the non-Western world. And church statistics indicate that Africa has effectively tipped the balance and transformed Christianity permanently into a non-Western religion.

Among many Africans who are now demanding multi-party politics, a serious question exists about the legitimate basis—whether Christian or not—for organized opposition in African politics. Until very recently, governments in many one-party states appealed to the African "consensus mode of decision-making" as the basis for restricting or eliminating political dissent and opposition. Now, however, the widespread clamoring for multi-party politics in African countries constitutes an implicit challenge to the notion that political opposition is somehow un-African. The larger question is whether, in the context of the extended pluralism of political life in modern African nation-states, the traditions and political arrangements that operated in the predominantly homogeneous ethnic societies of the past are capable of rendering adequate service.

And this is the point at which Christianity confronts traditional African beliefs. It is well known that African indigenous political arrangements have tended to sacralize authority and its exercise in society. The well-being of society was thought to be dependent on maintaining good relations with departed ancestors. The traditional ruler fulfilled a crucial function as the intermediary between the state and the ancestors. The authority of rulers was thus presumed to be that of the ancestors. Any radical political challenge threatened tradition and custom; it could undermine the very foundations of the identity and continuity of the community itself.

Christianity has fundamentally challenged this view of authority. For the Hebrew prophets, all rulers are mortal and subject to God, not to ancestors. The essential thrust of the New Testament is the continuation of this desacralizing impact. From a Christian point of view, authority belongs to and derives from the transcendent realm. In agreement with African tradition, Christianity teaches that political authority does not reside with human beings. But Christianity goes further and insists that authority is not rooted in the realm of human spirits either. From the Christian perspective, ancestors too become desacralized. In the history of Christianity in Africa, it is this de-sacralizing impact of the Christian faith that often explains, in part at least, the confrontations between Christian communities and traditional authorities.

In the present quest for new political arrangements in Africa, the discussion is often distorted, making it sound as if the choice is between so-called 'Western" forms of political organization, on the one hand, and "indigenous" systems and patterns, on the other. That distinction may sometimes be important. However, we need to realize that so-called Western democracy is not inherently indigenous to the Western world, nor is it exclusively the preserve of the West, for it has emerged largely under the impact of Christian social ideas. Because many Western nations, under the impact of secularization, have themselves lost touch with the Christian roots of their political institutions, it is not sufficiently realized that Christianity has, in fact, played a key role in the emergence of freedom in the modern world.

The struggle for true democracy in Africa unavoidably involves making room for the "way of Jesus"—the way of non-dominating power—in the political arrangement under which members of a society and nation will relate to one another. The mind of Jesus, as related to questions of politics and power, is not a dominating mind but rather a saving mind, a redemptive mind, a servant mind. Jesus' way of dealing with political power represents the perfect de-sacralization of all worldly power. The recognition that power truly belongs to God can liberate politicians and rulers to be humans among fellow-humans, and can ennoble politics and the business of government into the business of God and the service of God in the service of fellow-humans.

It is this perspective that provides the only genuine and abiding foundation for any serious quest in Africa for a sustainable culture of freedom and justice in a genuine democracy.

With respect to authority, Christianity has become a de-sacralizing force in Africa. However, de-sacralization does not mean de-spiritualizing. The African world continues a spiritual world; what changes is the configuration of forces. The human environment remains the same, but the answers to its puzzles are different. 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18). Those words of Jesus are in the context of his post-resurrection appearances, and hence come directly from the realm of "spirit-power." In an Africa that understands authority and power as emanating from the transcendent realm, the words make full sense. But it means that the application of the mind of Christ to questions of authority and power in the world is a matter of discipleship to Jesus Christ, in confrontation with those "powers" that would hinder such discipleship. For Christians not only to believe in Jesus but also to imitate him, is to be engaged in "power-encounter."

[The Rev. Dr. Bediako is Director of the Akrofi-Christaller Memorial Center for Mission Research and Applied Theology of the Presbyterian Church of Ghana, Akropong-Akuapem, Ghana. These edited excerpts have been drawn from a paper presented at last November's Atlanta conference.]

South Africa in the Larger African Context

By Johan D. Van der Vyver

ATLANTA, November 16, 1991—Africa's predicament today is related, in part, to the fact that colonial powers, notably the United Kingdom and France, imposed on their colonies typically Western constitutional arrangements without seriously considering the unique needs and indigenous institutions of Africa. Colonial powers naively labored under the mistaken assumption that governmental structures that worked well in a developed Western setting would be equally suited to a foreign and developing environment.

But effective, representative democracy goes hand in hand with conditions that were, and for the most part still are, largely absent in Africa. Those conditions include a certain level of education and intellectual sophistication among the bulk of society; the free flow of information and an informed public; a measure of material prosperity and economic development that more or less makes for comfortable living; a sense of national pride and loyalty to aspirations that promote the common good and transcend the impetus toward self-interest; and a situation of political stability and overall peace that would permit the effective functioning of regular governmental structures.

Admittedly, no country in the world fully complies with all of these requirements for the responsible exercise of political choice. For that reason, there also is no country in the world where democracy faultlessly guarantees good government. It should be noted, however, that the failures of democracy are directly proportional to the degree of noncompliance with the above conditions.

What about the role of Christianity? Should it be considered merely as a prop for democracy? It is fair to say that biblical directives are not so much concerned with the manner in which political authorities are designated or chosen—whether democratically or otherwise. The Bible reveals that state authority is a necessary institution to maintain the peaceful coexistence of people in political societies. It admonishes obedience to government for this purpose. Further, the Bible reveals that God holds governments accountable to uphold the virtues of human fellowship, social compassion, and neighborly love, which in their juridical manifestation requires compliance with the norm of justice. Governments, in a word, are ordained to maintain law and order within the confines of a particular political society, and they must do so in accord with the dictates of justice.

In many African countries, including South Africa, the second component of this biblical directive is often forgotten. For many years the South African government sought to justify its extremely repressive security legislation on the grounds that it had to maintain law and order. If declined to recognize that this admittedly vital component of political power ought always, according to Christian political ethics, to be exercised in subjection to the restrictions embedded in the demands of justice. Today the African National Congress runs the danger of ignoring the demands of justice in its desire to establish a system of majoritarian rule that will allow "effective government" without too many constitutional constraints.

A general misconception seems to prevail among politicians that a good constitution is one that makes for easy government. Nothing could be farther from the truth. A good constitution, on the contrary, is one that ties down those in authority, compelling them to negotiate and reach compromises with their opponents, forestalling the unbridled, unscrupulous exercise of state authority. A useful guide in evaluating any constitutional arrangement is to imagine that one's greatest political opponent is in charge of the affairs of state.

South Africa is currently engaged in establishing a system of democratic rule. In contrast to most other countries on the continent, South Africa is simultaneously planning to abolish institutionalized racial structures and to terminate discriminatory legislation and practices of apartheid. As in other parts of Africa, this movement toward democracy in my country has been promoted by a variety of Christians and church dignitaries who regularly voiced their criticism of unjust and repressive laws and regulations.

In the present context, the Kairos Document of 1985, signed by 150 theologians and Christian laypersons, deserves special mention. The document called, quite dramatically, for Christians "to participate in the struggle for liberation and for a just society"; it appealed to the churches to transform their activities "to serve the real religious needs of all the people and to further the liberation mission of God and the Church in the world."

Nevertheless, appeals from various church authorities and official statements did not often fire action at the grassroots level. By and large, the performance of religious, and in particular Christian, institutions and clergy in the struggle against apartheid was, to say the least pathetic. It is fair to conclude that the new political climate in South Africa dawned not because of Christian intervention but in spite of the general absence of it.

Nevertheless, South Africa is currently irreversibly set on a course toward a new democratic dispensation. That course will take its peoples through extremely troubled waters, but at the end of the tunnel one might already observe the light of a bright new future in which South Africa, as a Christian democratic society, will once again take its place within the international community of states.

[These edited excerpts come from Johan Van der Vyver's response to the address by Dr. Richard Joseph in Atlanta last November. Dr. Van der Vyver is Professor of Law at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg and Professor of Human Rights at Emory University School of Law in Atlanta.]