Many Christians today struggle with the notion of the church’s involvement in socio-political and economic issues. There remains a confused section, including many young people and elders, in our own Christian Community when it particularly comes to the subject of the Church’s role in Politics.
Times as we are in compels one to wonder if our churches ought to take an active part in political affairs of our State. This writer sincerely believes that the Church indeed has a role in politics, and it is the duty of our church leaders to recognize this role and play it out in the socio-political arena as and when necessary and according to the need(s) of the time.
The Scripture and history clearly support the church’s place in these concerns. Daniel becomes a leader in Babylon, Amos and other prophets speak into political and social matters in Israel, Judah and the surrounding nations. Both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ himself refer to the political concerns of their day. In both the Old and New Testament God’s representatives spoke out against abuse of political power and sought just use of power. Hence participation in politics does not detract from spirituality; in fact a spirituality that is unrelated to politics is questionable.
The key role the church plays/can play in politics is through its prophetic ministry. “Prophetic” here means speaking into policy, structure, or issues in the name of God and Christ, or on behalf of humanity in general or of a community in particular. This is different to the “prophetic word” that is current – different in emphasis, not better or worse. The church has a set of moral norms and it has illustrations in Scripture and in history of how these norms have been used. The prophetic role is seen in the application of relevant moral norms to the current political concerns of the day. Hence the church needs to continue engaging with government on justice, corruption, leadership, economic debt, education, health care, safety and security, policy, and whatever else is morally important. Further, the church needs to be saying “yes” as well as “no” to governmental promises and policies. By “no” I mean to clearly oppose wrongdoing, corruption, or anything else deemed unedifying and not benefiting society. “Yes” supports commitments to fulfilling promises made to making real efforts to curb crime, to making education truly a prime target for development, to making health care accessible and significant, to making progress in every other field without letting the scourge of corruption hold sway over honest dealings/practices.
It should be reasonably clear that the church’s role in politics is an ethical one. I’m not concerned here with party politics which is often partisan, though I concede that individual Christians belonging to parties of their choice will apply ethics within the framework of their party’s policies. I consider ethics as an expression of God’s compassion for humanity: God’s desire for the best for creation. It also reflects the “image of God” in humanity. If all humanity is made in the image of God in some way or other, then humans are surely to seek the best for each other. Public leaders, then, are to work for the betterment of their communities. Such concern in our State is rare today (has it ever been really evident?). The reason is due to greed and self-centredness. And now codes of conduct are being produced in various quarters to give guidance for public morality.
One cannot formulate policy or structure society without having the checks and balances to offset the pervasive and corrupting elements of selfishness. Hence law is necessary; a bill of rights is important (what about a formal bill of responsibilities?); a constitution is critical; codes of conduct become imperative.
However, laws, bills of rights, codes of conduct, constitutions – including the Bible, cannot guarantee transformation or even minimal change. There has to be a will to want to act. And this relates to hope. For people to want change, motivation is needed. Hence those ethicists that emphasise “responsibility” stress the value of integrity now, for this influences the future. So, it may be that some leaders (social, religious) who were part of the “great revival” to effect much needed change in our society are now losing their faith, because they sense no hope – or very little, for the future. This hopelessness is rooted in disillusionment in the present. For this despair to change, leaders, including political leaders, have to voluntarily impose upon themselves limits and restrictions, sacrifice more and exercise self-denial as visible examples of their commitment to the future.
The future apart, in this Century, we must no longer view Church as a semiweekly activity that occurs within the confines of a physical structure with four walls and a pulpit. Instead, we must take our message of hope, justice, unity and peace to the wider community, and, yes, even to the Assembly . Real change happens when various groups –public and private, secular and religious, progressive and conservative, privileged and disadvantaged, old and young work together to achieve a common goal.
Unfortunately, the coexistence of religion and government(i.e., church and state) still remains a contentious issue in many Christian states/countries. There are individuals, even leaders, regardless of their political affiliation, who attempt to drag religion into politics, and then scold the faith community for relying too heavily on government to solve social problems…problems that we, as a body of faith, have Bernard called to address through our faith-i.e to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and care for the sick. Accordingly, if the church would have done its duty, there would have been less corruption and fewer corrupt political leaders and bureaucrats (This does not include those corrupts with innate/acquired habit of indulging dishonest practices).
Principled leaders guide a nation into responsible action. And it is responsible action that honours principle, enabling others to understand and appreciate it. However, recent events in our State reveal failure on the part of our leaders-social, religious and political, to usher in the much-needed changes and progress. The church could have played a pivotal role in addressing certain issues of the State, but most of the time, it has shied away from its responsibilities and focussed mainly on the holy agendas within its comfort zone. We have to speak and act, we have to engage government on moral terms, not on expediency or seeming interference. Christians in the political arena have to commit themselves to honesty and integrity in all areas of their lives to show by example that following Jesus works. The church, as institution, needs to have competent lobbyists within government structures to inform and be informed about the issues of the day. This must be seen as an investment, not a costly luxury. The Roman Catholic Church and the Council of Churches in the West have gone this route – to their great benefit.
To conclude: the church’s role in politics is to be there visibly in the context of political policy formulation. The church has to be prophetic, speaking for God. The church has to herald the ethical values that enrich the state/nation. The church has to be bold and forthright, constructive and innovative. The church has to be “salt and light” in what is so often a corrupt environment, to bring light and health.
When the church has done its part, then the change we seek in our society and within our communities will automatically be realised and will herald a peaceful atmosphere devoid of turbulent situations.
A. Anato Swu
Satakha Town, Zunheboto.
