As a young boy, I was taught both at home and at church that Christians should not meddle in political issues. I remember we were referred to the Bible, Romans 13 verses 1-8 to be exact. From then I thought it was not Christian to criticise the civil authorities. It was up until such a time when I was able to read and understand the Bible on my own that I discovered that I was taught what I call a “half-baked gospel”. I was taught the truth, but not the whole of it. I was taught to compromise, or should I say, I was fooled.
SUNDAY OPINION BY SIMBA JOE MAMBIRAVANA
I read accounts in the Bible whereby prophets of God denounced kings of their time. Also, I read about prophets of God often at loggerheads with civil authorities. A very good example was the prophet Nathan who rebuked David (2 Samuel 12:1-15). The prophet fought for social justice. I also learnt about the boldness of the Apostle Paul, prophets like Amos and Jeremiah who were unpopular with the aristocrats, but declared boldly the word of the Lord even in the most unfavourable of political conditions. At this stage I began to compare biblical characters with our own church leaders, especially in Zimbabwe and I began to ask myself a lot of questions. Among these was the question, “is the church carrying the cross?”
The more I ask this question, especially within my church, the more I get frustrated with the answers. Either I am told not to touch the anointed ones, or I am told that leaders are God-sent. To me it’s plain docility. As a theologian, I understand these things. There is the idea of compromise that has gripped the church. I think church leaders have lost the plot by compromising and choosing to “leave things as they are” and “leaving everything in the hands of the Creator”. To me, it is going against the “message of the cross”. Yet in Luke 4 verse 18 Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.” But is this what is obtaining?
Since time immemorial, civil authorities have always been wary of how powerful religion (let alone the church) is in as far as influencing the people is concerned. This is one of the reasons why some politicians have always sought the church as a support base. Karl Marx’s famous dictum “religion is the opium of the masses” quickly comes into mind. According to Marx, religion is there as an ideological apparatus of the state. It is there to teach people to remain subjects, submissive and above all docile. It is a sedative to cushion from reality. However, history and time has by-and-large proved Marx wrong. It is because of the great awakening within the church that systems like apartheid and colonialism crumbled.
When I speak of the “church”, I refer to all institutionalised bodies of worship that worship God through Jesus Christ, or simply the Christian community. In Zimbabwe, we have the traditional mainline, the African initiated, non-trinitarian and the charismatic prophetic movements. All of these fall under what I call the “church”. We also have church bodies like the Zimbabwe Council of Churches (ZCC), Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe (EFZ), Zimbabwe Catholic Bishops Conference (ZCBC), and the Apostolic Christian Council of Zimbabwe, among others.
The church is a very powerful social institution which is closest to the grassroots since people meet regularly. The church plays a pivotal role in the community because of a number of factors. First, the church is oriented to have compassion towards the weak in the society therefore it can influence individuals, the community and the nation at large. Secondly, the church is an outstanding vehicle for getting information to the grassroots through its regular meetings. The church therefore becomes in itself a “community in a community”, identifying itself with its members to be a very powerful body in the society and nation at large. By default, the church is a voice of the voiceless, a place where the poor and down-trodden are treated equally with the rich and famous. Because of the societal position of the church, its leaders ultimately become very influential members in the society.
However, it is very disappointing to note that the church in Zimbabwe has refused to take its place in fighting for the rights of the oppressed. What baffles me is that while the Zimbabwean situation continues to worsen, almost every day a church is formed. These churches are mostly led by young and charismatic leaders who wear designer suits and drive the latest vehicles. I do not have a problem with their lifestyle or approach to the gospel. But I get so agitated when they become “political hallelujah boys” of the status quo. They must not forget that it is their flock that funds their designer lifestyle. Their flock are the very same suffering Zimbabweans. The least they can do is speak on their behalf.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The church has a mandate in the society to exercise its prophetic office. What I see in the church today is a group of men and women who are compromised. The biblical view that leaders are from God has been abused by both politicians and church leaders. Does that mean they are infallible? Ever since the 2006 church document, “The Zimbabwe We Want”, the church has not been fully exercising its prophetic office. In fact, church leaders have deified our political leaders and made them “untouchable” and criticising them has become a no-go area.
The church, through its teachings, must be relevant in a politically volatile and unstable economic environment. The church must be relevant in its message to the people as well as the government. Above all, I believe that the church has a mandate to preach the truth to every living soul. Exposing and denouncing corrupt leadership is very Christian but it is not happening. You find that what is obtaining is the exact opposite. Our churches are preaching an apologetic gospel because they want to be on the “safe” side.
If we are to compare our leaders in the church today with the likes of Apostle Paul who spoke boldly in front of the kings of their time, even denouncing them, we will notice the huge difference. Is today’s church bold? Is the church carrying the cross? All I see are pastors, reverends, apostles, prophets, papa and any other title that our leaders in the church carry preaching a gospel of compromise, a gospel that is as soft as decaffeinated tea.
Corruption continues to surge, politically-motivated violence is rampant and intimidation is the order of the day. Nepotism is rampant, looting of public funds goes unchallenged. Industries are closing everyday and in those still operating, people are going for up to a year without salaries. The recent Supreme Court ruling further puts the workers in a precarious position and as we speak, thousands are losing their jobs everyday. Are these not enough afflictions dear church leaders? I know you are praying but should we not “pray and act?”
Everyday the situation worsens while we watch and we expect a relevant message but all we hear you preach is “prosperity” and “miracles”. As our shepherds, where are you taking us to? When is the church going to act? When is the church going to take its rightful place by being the voice of the voiceless? Faith without works is dead, since the last time I checked.
