Pauline Christianity, Forefathers, and Pure Conscience: A Postcolonial Reading of 2 Timothy 1:3 from a Zimbabwean Context

Studies on Paul from E.P. Sanders (Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of patterns of religion. Fortress Press, 1977), J.D.G. Dunn (The new perspective on Paul (lecture, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, November 4, 1982, pp 1–11), 1982), N.T. Wright (The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Fortress, 1991) to the most recent work by B.J. Orepeza (The new perspective on Paul and post-new perspective on Paul: A bibliography. https://www.academia.edu/41890352/The_New_Perspective_on_Paul_and_Post_New_Perspective_on_Paul_A_Bibliography , 2020) have converged on the conclusion that after the Damascus Road experience, Paul neither repudiated nor disavowed the religion of his forefathers and its tenets. In 2 Timothy 1:3, Paul posits that he guiltlessly serves God in the manner handed down by his progenitors. For the purposes of this work, the pseudo-Pauline authorship of the Pastoral letters has been deliberately overlooked. That the issue of ‘forefathers’ raised in 2 Timothy 1:3 syncs with Paul’s assertions elsewhere in his undisputed letters, especially in Romans 11:1, 2 Corinthians 11:22, and Philippians 3:5, sufficiently justifies a Pauline inductive reading of the pericope. Paul states that his “conscience is pure” as he clings to the ancestral mode of worship. Paul’s post-Damascus Road Christianity did not interrupt his connection with the traditions of his ancestors (Meyer, Heinrich Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 2 Timothy 1. Funk & Wagnalls. https://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/commentaries/hmc/2-timothy.php , 1887). As Marulli (Paul and his Jewish identity: An overview. Spes Christiana, 22(23), 85–104. www1.thh-friedensau.de , 2012) argues, Paul never ceased to affirm his deep connection with the people, land, and traditions of Israel. This article argues that in Paul’s Christianity, converts to Christ are not obliged to forsake their ancestors and their benevolent traditional beliefs. From a postcolonial hermeneutical analysis, the article questions and advocates for a review of the Christian Church in Zimbabwe’s anathematization of African Traditional Religion’s belief in forefathers. The article avers that Pauline Christianity, with its respect for the progenies of both the Gentiles and the Hebrews, is ideal for the Zimbabwean religious context, where converts to Christianity find it difficult to completely disconnect from their ancestors (Mligo, From Saul the Pharisee to Paul the Apostle: The Conversion of Paul, a prototype for Africans’ conversion to Christianity? E-Journal of Religious and Theological Studies, 7(1), 21–29. https://noyam.org/journals/erats/ , 2021). The article establishes that Pauline Christianity, which forms the basis of Christianity throughout the Gentile world, is unopposed to ancestralism. The article further argues that ambivalence towards ancestors by Christian Churches in Zimbabwe is a dictate of colonial theo-ideologies which needs deconstruction so that African Christians, like Paul in Judaism, can freely espouse the ubuntu values of their forefathers with a pure conscience.