Separating Church and State

Last October’s Synod for Africa realised the need to step up the Church’s involvement in speaking for the voiceless, not only in conflicts but also in getting governments to improve services for the people. That is why the final statement speaks of the need to change attitudes and to have structures that will work effectively in ensuring reconciliation.

I like the observation that the Church has not fully utilised those opportunities influencing policies. That’s why the synod spoke of the need of the Church to have representation on national and international organisations.

From this, I perceive the African Church coming to a certain realisation that she has not acted sufficiently. But such realisation is not enough, and unless we have a real African reflection regarding Church-state relations within the provisions of canon law the Church in Africa will always remain timid, therefore risk falling short in fulfilling her prophetic role.

Church law speaks of separation of Church and state, thereby defining especially to which extent the clergy can be involved in politics. The Church’s position did not come by chance, but from experience. It came as a result of the effects of the interaction of the Church and state when the divide between them wasn’t that clear.

Such situations always have had consequences on the evangelising mission of the Church. And so, the laws in this regard have a history, linked to certain concrete situations and events. While the position is good in principle, however, the manner that the African Church is relating to it leaves much to be desired.

The Church in Africa still has a voice that is much diminished in Europe, and it can be enhanced and channelled to improve the lives of people. In fact, significant political changes took place when the Church straightened up from her timidity and said: Enough is enough; something happened. But this moral authority that she enjoys is not tapped to the maximum. Why?

The keep Church out of politics talk has often paralysed many pastors, even in situations where their prophetic responsibility could have obliged them to stand up and speak.

As a result, there have been cases where people have been subjected to injustice, and all they got from the people who are supposed to speak for them was overly cautious statements that fell short of the boldness of truth, all that for fear of engaging in politics.

Some priests, and even bishops, have disagreed with the timid silence and try to go alone and speak out. Often they are judged harshly for that, both first by the government they criticise but also by fellow pastors who look at them as going beyond the Church law. Often those prophets remain isolated, weakened, and defenceless.

We may not ignore prudence and obedience to the Church law. However, that shouldn’t paralyse our witness nor does it justify lukewarmness.

Indeed, when we allow this view of the separation of state and Church to land us in mediocrity, not only does the Church let Africa down but she fails in her mission. The concrete form of the Church’s mission in Africa is not the same as in America or Europe; it means the Church needs to be armed differently according to where she is and what she is doing.

It certainly would be a failure in her duty if the Church in Africa sought to relate to the state in the manner that, for instance, the French Church would in France.

Here is an area that would require study by canon lawyers, theologians and bishops in the African Church, to come up with concrete proposals on how the Church would effectively fulfil her mission.

It’s in this where I see the need for the Church in Africato rise,pick up her pallet, and walk. She needs to accept that the political scene in the West is not the same as in the so-called Third World. Therefore the African Church must work out a particular way of observing the law of the Church in a manner that does not compromise her prophetic role in the face of the multitudes in her flock who are victims of injustice.