Online Reporter
Reverend Davison Mukandatsama, [email protected]
THE relationship between church and State depends on the context of each country. In Zimbabwe, the Constitution guarantees both the existence of the church and the state, as well as their separation. This legal framework establishes a foundation for coexistence, ensuring that neither institution dominates the other while both contribute to the broader social fabric.
However, the political reality in the 21st century is markedly different from the context of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans.
The world in which Paul wrote was shaped by imperial authority, limited civic participation, and a very different understanding of governance.
To understand our response today, we must carefully interpret Romans 13:1-7 and apply its principles thoughtfully to our contemporary situation. This requires both theological insight and practical awareness of present-day political dynamics.
There has to be careful appropriation of the biblical narratives. Biblical texts were written in specific historical settings, shaped by the social, cultural, and political realities of their time. As such, we must approach them with care, ensuring that we do not simply transpose ancient instructions onto modern circumstances without reflection. Instead, we must interpret their deeper themes — justice, accountability, moral responsibility — and apply them meaningfully to our own context in Zimbabwe today.
What should the State’s attitude be?
Zimbabwe has no state religion. Consequently, the State is expected to remain neutral towards all faiths, providing equal protection and freedom of worship. This neutrality is essential in a diverse society, as it promotes inclusivity and prevents the marginalisation of minority religious groups. By maintaining this balance, the state creates an environment in which various beliefs can coexist peacefully.
Historically, church–state relations have been characterised by both cooperation and tension. There have been moments when the church and the state have worked together for the common good, particularly in areas such as education, health, and social welfare. However, tension often arises when the church speaks out against injustice, corruption, or the abuse of power. In such instances, relationships can become strained. Conversely, when the state upholds justice, accountability, and human dignity, cooperation and mutual respect are strengthened, creating a more harmonious partnership.
Compliance
Submitting to authority, as Paul writes, does not mean blind obedience or silence in the face of injustice. Rather, it involves recognising that authority exists within a broader divine and moral framework, while also holding leaders accountable for their actions. Romans 13:1-7 has sometimes been used or appealed to by a church that retreats from its moral responsibility to offer justifiable criticism of the state. Such an interpretation risks weakening the prophetic voice of the church.
The need for a balanced approach cannot be morally contested. The Bible addresses a wide range of issues, including moral, economic, and political concerns. It does not advocate passive acceptance of wrongdoing but encourages discernment and courage. Therefore, submission should be understood as responsible engagement — supporting what is just while resisting what is unjust.
The church’s role today
In the following four ways, the church can engage with the government by focusing only on preaching the gospel and staying out of politics. While this approach emphasises spiritual priorities, it often leads to uncritical obedience to the state and a reluctance to address pressing societal issues. Such disengagement may limit the church’s influence in shaping ethical governance.
The church can also support the Government when it upholds justice, and resist when it does not.
This dual role reflects a commitment to truth and accountability rather than allegiance to power. By encouraging Christians to participate in politics and public life, guided by biblical values, the church nurtures responsible citizenship. This involvement ensures that moral principles inform leadership and decision-making processes.
In addition, the church may speak out against injustice without aligning with any political party. Maintaining independence from partisan interests allows the church to preserve its credibility and moral authority. It can act as a voice for the voiceless, advocating for fairness, transparency, and the protection of human rights without being perceived as politically compromised.
Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., among others, demonstrated how prophetic voices can confront systemic injustice while remaining rooted in faith. Their example illustrates the power of moral conviction combined with non-violent advocacy. It reminds us that the church has both the opportunity and the responsibility to address issues of governance and morality boldly, without fear or favour.
Conclusion
Christians should obey laws that align with the Constitution, such as paying taxes and fulfilling civic responsibilities. At the same time, they have both the right and the duty to question how power is exercised. Respect for authority should never become a tool for oppression or a justification for silence in the face of wrongdoing.
True obedience is thoughtful and critical rather than unquestioning and passive.
Religion and politics, when properly understood, should complement each other for the good of society. Each has a role to play in shaping a just and equitable nation. When both are guided by moral excellence, integrity, and a commitment to the common good, the outcome is more likely to be peace, economic development, and social cohesion.
