 Thank you very much everyone and what a wonderful pleasure for me to be asked by James Crossley to be able to take part in this conference. In some way the subject of my presentation isn't quite earth shaking, but I think what it will add is not only an African perspective to the discussion on the Bible but more particularly my own country Zambia which is not very well known to most people partly because we are victims of our own peace and stability for the last 50 years. So only in the last four or five years have we had a bit of news to share with the rest of the world and I'll tell you a little bit more about that. So by way of introducing my topic I thought I would begin with a quotation from Coriolanus seen to Act 3 lines 226 to 231. This particular scene here is where the tribune have gone to the plebs to try and ask them to cast their vote on behalf of Coriolanus and in that process they say that if for any reason you must do something that is totally against what you intended to do namely we made you against the grain to voice him counsel, let the fault on us meaning that you can blame it on us if things go wrong. So in some sense my hearing or reading of the text that we are going to look at, I'm not going to blame anyone, I'm just going to blame myself. By way of introduction I got this headline from a book I read about four or five years ago, the late arrival of the post. It has nothing to do with the postman, it has to do with the fact that postcolonial theory arrived quite late in biblical studies. And thanks in large measure to this man whom I met in Birmingham, Rasya Sugitharaja whom most of you will remember was the editor of that book Voices from the Margin. Going back again, sorry I've got this so completely, I was supposed to be going back so I don't know where I'm going now, maybe I might get there eventually. Now let me begin here because this is a good place to begin. I want to contextualize what I'm going to discuss with you from an African or Zambian perspective and I have entitled that perspective as a Zambian context for obeying the powers that be. Just a little bit of background about Zambia. Zambia was a British colony up to October 24th, 1964, so it's been independent since then. But what that means is that even up to today most of our laws and regulations etc. do bear a certain colonial legacy. And therefore when I was doing my PhD because I was studying the area where my parents came from, a postcolonial theory was very much the natural thing for me to do. Now this is a picture, not many of you would recognize this man in the center there. His name is Edgar Lungu. Now Edgar Lungu is the current president of Zambia. He is the sixth president since 1964, so we haven't done too badly. He and I in some sense crossed paths a long long time ago. When I went to secondary school in 1971, a long time ago, he and I went to the same school. We never knew each other and we still don't know each other. The reason why I put him there is to foreground part of the discussion that I'm going to give to you. That by and large Zambia has been a very peaceful, quiet, democratic state. But around about 1991, Zambia decided to change its constitution. And part of the change in the constitution in the preamble was to include a clause that declared Zambia a Christian nation. Now most Christians thought this was a great idea. But there were some of us, even though we were Christians, we were very worried why politicians would be interested in enshrining the Christianity of the country in its constitution. My guess was that one of the ways of shutting people up is by using the Bible. So if you can say to people who are trying to object to your policies to say, after all we are Christians and the Bible says X, depending who decides what the Bible says. This man here has continued the same policies. Now recently the bishops of Zambia wrote a pastro letter to all the Christians and non-Christians in Zambia warning about how slowly Zambia is descending into a dictatorship. And all that discussion has come under my good friend Edgar. I'll show you a picture of another man connected with Zambian politics. There he is in red. His name is Hakainde. It's a local name. He is the leader of the opposition. And in some sense he demonstrates how one can relate to a text such as the one we are going to look at and disagree with its basic interpretation as supporting what the state does. And just to give you a little bit of a background. In that photo there he has just been arrested by the police. So in the last seven or eight weeks and he has been charged with treason. And part of the charge of treason would make any court in any place laugh. He was arrested when he and the president were invited to the same ceremony, traditional ceremony. His entourage was the first one to go and the president's entourage was coming behind. Now there is a law like in most countries, if the president is using that part of the road, the police outriders would go ahead and tell everyone to go aside to let the president pass. He refused. He said actually the one who was legitimately elected by the people, this guy is an imposter. And there was a bit of a standoff in the process. In the process the president's entourage decided to overtake him and then go wherever they were supposed to go. A day later he was arrested and that's him there in front of the police station and the charge is treason. I started a debate on Facebook trying to discuss whether blocking the president's entourage constitutes treason. Half of my respondents said of course it's clear he put the life of the president in danger so that he will become president. And then I asked is that sufficient to constitute intent to depose someone. If you simply say no I'm not going to give way. So the other half said no no no it's just a traffic offence. He should have just been taken in and told listen don't do that again or pay a few extra pounds. So anyway he is still in custody awaiting trial. My guess is that I don't think the trial will go anywhere. If anything the government has given him the platform for winning the next elections. Not that I support him. What I'm proposing is that the famous text we have from Romans chapter 13 can be read against the grain. And I suggest that postcolonia theory is probably the best perspective from which to do that kind of reading or hearing the text. Unfortunately the beta I wanted to emphasize there in red isn't quite so visible if you are at the back of the room. The beta I wanted to emphasize there is Robert Young speaks about insurgent knowledges that come from the suborten the dispossessed and that they seek to change the terms and values under which we all live. So I'm suggesting that the text of Romans chapter 13 which has always been read as simply saying whether you like it or not. Once somebody has been put in power you have to obey them. I'm suggesting that if you are coming from this perspective of insurgent knowledges perhaps there is a different way of reading that text. I thought this was also be an occasion for me to pay tribute to somebody who inspired me to do postcolonia theory. Even though the kind of writing he did was not called postcolonia theory. This is the man. His name is Michael Pryor. Michael Pryor was a Vincentian Catholic priest. He wrote a book called The Bible and Colonialism. In my view that in some sense gave impetus to the discussion that the Bible is an ideological text and that it has been used both for good and for ill. In his case his main focus was that the Israelis have abused the Bible in order to use the Bible as title deeds to the holy land. But when he wrote that book and sent it to the publishers they said we're not so sure we can publish this as it stands. Why don't you include other places where land has been an issue regarding the Bible and how it's interpreted. And therefore the book was expanded to include Northern Ireland and of course he was happy being an Irish man. It also includes Latin America. It also includes South Africa. That's the man who inspired me to do this kind of reading. So this is the text that has given so much discussion. When I was doing a little bit of research although this was the background text at the back of my mind my mentor said to me if you focus on interpreting this text you are going to spend all your research time fighting the people who have written on this text. So why don't you move the discussion. So I moved the discussion to North Eastern Zambia and to how the Bible in general had been received, translated and appropriated and then gave only one chapter to Romans chapter 13. I won't go through all of it but I'm interested in this one there. Let every soul be subject to the ruling authorities. Authority is there for there is no authority except from God and those that have been put there have been established by him. So that's the main verse that I'm going to focus on in this discussion. But part of my discovery when I was looking at how this text has been used I was interested in how this text has been used particularly in Africa and I discovered that largely for most people this text means exactly what it says and that's exactly what I'm questioning. So the first text here is from an African Catholic cardinal who comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. His name was Joseph Albert Malula. Now Joseph Albert Malula made these remarks in 1965 just after the independence of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from Belgium and at that Thanksgiving they were giving a Thanksgiving for the end of the Second Vatican Council. The cardinal said the following. It is for us a comfort that our government should associate with us to bend the knee in front of God. It is God who gives authority. Mr. President, the church recognizes your authority and this bit is where it connects with Romans chapter 13 because authority comes from God. We will apply faithfully the laws which you would like to establish. You can count on us in your efforts to establish the peace to which all of us aspire so assiduously. So these words in some sense were read and are still read by people as confirming the state and to say whatever the state does that's what we will follow. But these actually turned out to be famous last words. Not that the man died but seven years later when Cardinal Malula made a statement which opposed some of the things that President Mobutu at that time was putting in place. President Mobutu didn't like that because previously after he became president he was all very cozy and in a good relationship with the bishops because the Democratic Republic of Congo is a very Catholic country. I would say about 85% Catholic. There was such a good relationship that at the beginning President Mobutu decided to buy all the bishops of the Congo, Mercedes-Benz, and to build a house for them. And then Malula goes on to say, no, no, no, Mr. President, I think you are getting this wrong. He was immediately surrounded by the police and they were about to arrest him when the Vatican whisked him out of the country and he was in exile for a month while they were negotiating how to get him back into the country. He was eventually taken back into the country. So famous last words. But I quote them here in order to show how for most people when you read Romans chapter 13 it's very straightforward. It says, let every person be subject to the governing authorities and therefore this idea of resisting what the government decides is totally out of question. The second example I'm going to give of hearing or reading the text with the grain that is supporting this interpretation that whatever the government does you have to go for it comes from South Africa. This long quotation here is from a book called It is a Beautiful Country written by Alan Payton, a South African author. It's a long quotation but I'm interested in the bit in red there where one of the people in the book is questioning why anybody should be defying the government and if you remember that at the time when they were defying the government the white government decided that it was in the right and no one else was to question it. So the guy then says, was it not poor himself who wrote that rulers are not a terror to the good but only to the evo-doers quoting Romans chapter 13 verse 3. So far you can see that for most people the text of Romans chapter 13 is absolutely straightforward and I have given those examples of my friend Ed Galungu and his nemesis showing that most probably as long as they are in power this is exactly what the text means. So I'm now going to focus on the first verse there and I was delighted to hear the paper that was given on the politics of translation. Again here the politics of translation is absolutely everywhere and to make matters worse it makes a huge difference in terms of the grammar, the syntax and all those things as to how we can understand this. For example the word that is used mostly in some translations to say that every person should obey the ruling authorities there it is given as it's not the ordinary word in Greek for to obey and for me that already raises certain flags when the ordinary word in Greek to obey is and you avoid it there you avoid it for a good reason but as to what it means for me the word is an unusual word obviously made out of two parts hupo which would be the preposition and taso which would be the verb but as we know once words combine preposition and verb sometimes they give rise to a new meaning but when I was doing my MA in Biblical studies in Rome we would stop at words such as that and try to pass it and I'm sure those of you with Greek background would immediately pass that as imperative third person singular and then you would also say well the ending is passive and it goes with the idea to be submissive sounds quite passive but my question is is that a passive or a middle so from a postcolonial perspective or from reading against the grain I would say suppose we were to read hipotasesto as a middle rather than a passive would it make any difference I would say in terms of emphasis on new ones probably it would because as everybody or every student of Greek knows when you use the middle voice you actually are saying that it's somebody doing something when to put it sort of in some way when there is something in it for you that there is a benefit somewhere for you so I think it's saying much more than simply you should obey it's saying that you know what it's in your best interest to be able to co-operate with these powers but he calls them hupera husais which is a very difficult one to translate now most people you say hupera husais means ruling authorities yes one meaning is ruling but there is another meaning hupera ho I think also has the sense of to excel to do well therefore it's a different meaning if I'm told listen co-operate with leaders or authorities who are really trying to do their best for the common good I think that's a different meaning from ya you know what any leader who has been put there co-operate with them so that's the bit I was passing there and the second part for me where it says here I am a hupera ho in romance 13 1 b I see it as a conditional clause and what would that mean here is how I would translate it if I was to be very liberal and if my interest is ideological and if I'm interested in the meaning so this is how I would translate it for if a particular instance of authority or government is not from God then it ceases to have legitimacy and by implication it ceases to command our obedience now coming back to my Zambian situation I'm increasingly getting the impression that the current president or the current leadership are taking us down a dangerous road and that we are going to become an undemocratic state and the lack of democracy I think is the seed for so much unrest in the future now if I went back to Zambia and I'm going there in July for a visit and I hope the Zambian intelligence are not listening to this otherwise they will not welcome me at the airport but if I was to take part in the elections in Zambia I don't think the current leadership still has legitimacy there are so many questions even to the way they became the current leaders of the country so that would be my reading of Romans chapter 13 this one there's just one thing very quickly before I bring the whole discussion to a close where one of the things I discovered when I was doing my research which was of great interest to me and I know it's of great interest to my colleague Chris Keith here is that we often read the Bible especially those of us in the West as a written document of course it's a written document but if we try to put it in its context letters were not meant to be read privately as a written document they were an oral document and that makes a difference and my argument would be that while a written text has a certain finality about it as one wise person once said what I have written I have written Gagrafa Gagrapsa so in some sense the written word has been given much more than it is worth whereas if a word is taken as oral there is some fluidity to it and that there is some negotiation that takes place in terms of appropriating meaning and I'm also suggesting that in the letter that was read to the Romans it was not as if photocopies had been distributed to all the Romans and says here you go this is what Saint Paul wrote they made sure that everybody was gathered on a particular day and then the person who had brought the letter read it but not just read it interpreted the letter unfortunately we don't have the interpretation that goes with it if we had we would actually discover that this text probably said a lot more than it does and it's that unsaid bit that concerns me and that encourages me that perhaps if we read against the grain we can discover a different way of appropriating the text one suggestion that has been made to support the fact that there is oral patterning in Romans 13 by John Harvey is that the whole letter is really suffused with an oral ethos and he gives an example of chapter 13 verse 2 where he quotes this verse as showing a chiasmus I am not very convinced about the chiasmus there so I will move on very quickly but I cite this oral patterning in order to underscore that in oral cultures whatever you hear is subject to negotiation subject to negotiation sometimes purely on the meaning level somebody says something to you and then you can say sorry I didn't catch that I'm not so sure what did you mean there and then perhaps the person can actually refine what they are saying and say well that's not really what I intended to say but unfortunately that stuff is lost to us but of course that's good news for biblical scholars because it keeps me and Chris and James Crossley and all of you in employment what I'm suggesting here is that when we read the text of Romans chapter 13 we are being invited to negotiate we have to negotiate we can negotiate the text just as we would negotiate when we are talking to somebody in person this for me is a good summary of what is happening in the text it comes from the African Bible in some way the African Bible is a bit of a misnoma a group of scholars Catholic scholars got together round about 1990 to come up with a translation of the Bible and they realized that translation of the Bible is hard work so they got in touch with the Americans who offered them the version I think it's the NIV version which they used and then they made comments on the particular books and they called it the African Bible specifically this is what they said verses 1 to 7 of chapter 13 demand obedience to what is right not just any ruling authority and never to what is wrong and that is understood within the text so poor is certainly not encouraging blind obedience in my view so according to Romans 12 it's up to Christians to discern for themselves what the will of God is so you cannot decide how to apply Romans chapter 13 purely on its basis and then lastly poor carefully declines to legitimize either Rome or resistance to Rome the answer is somewhere in between thank you very much