Different Voices Discussion Starter No. 2: Politics

One thing politics and religion have in common is that, in genteel society, it is considered bad form to bring either subject up over dinner.  (That in itself, should be a clue that they are somehow connected to one another).

Is politics a costly and pointless sideshow that we would all be better off without?

There are those who want to bring politics into everything and there are those who believe it is the business only of worthless parasites and a poison to all it touches.

Where does the truth sit on that spectrum?  What exactly is “politics” anyway?  When someone says “that is a bit political”, what do they really mean?

One definition I have found very helpful is something I came across in a political science paper at university:             

Politics is how we decide, who decides, who gets what. 

Aristotle, the highly influential Greek philosopher, wrote, in the introduction to his famous book “The Politics”, that “man is by nature, a political animal”.

I am sure all of us have at some point watched a nature documentary showing the spectacular combat between male elephant seals that decides which of them has breeding rights over an elephant seal colony.  Even though this ritualised combat decides the distribution of power, it is not politics, it has more in common with warfare.

Now lets imagine that one day the female seals got together and said “actually, we don’t think the best chest bumper is necessarily the best qualified to take over our harem, how come we don’t get to have a say in this?”  The seals would then be practicing politics.  But of course, seals don’t have these kinds of conversations, animals don’t decide how they decide, who decides, who gets what.  This is why politics is a distinctly human activity.

Politics is everywhere in human society, human beings start practicing politics as soon as they are able to talk.  If you spend enough time in any school playground you will hear children engaging in political discourse.

For example, Little Gary has brought his football to school with him today.  At lunch time he is out in the field doing some practice kicks when his class-mates come up to him and ask to play too.  Timothy, Gary’s friend, says “lets get into teams and have a game”.   Gary thinks this is a great idea so he says, “Bryce, Mohan, Sarai, Daniel: you can be on Timothy’s team.  Stephen, Moana, Keith, Giusepie: you can be on my team”. 

So far this is not political, it is just administrative or, if you like, bureaucratic.  But then Daniel, who wants to play on the same team as his best friend, Keith, but has been put on the other team, says to Gary “Why do you get to pick the teams?”

Gary replies “because it’s my ball” Now the conversation has become political.

Politics is all around us, it is just a part of being human.  It is also frequently a very uncomfortable and confronting part of being human, which is why, I believe, many people find the subject distasteful.  I am sure all the children, in the scenario described above , would have much preferred to have just got on with the game rather than spend time arguing about how to pick the teams.  But at the same time, having that discussion was a very natural thing to do for those children.   Being in an environment where such questioning was prohibited would be unhealthy, indeed, “dehumanising”.

Saying that the church should not get involved in politics is, I believe, an absurdity, as it denies a fundamental part of our God given nature – which by the way, is the very image of God himself.  So, if we, as bearers of the image of God, which sets us apart from the animals, are set apart from the animals in part by being political, we are therefore political by virtue of being bearers of the image of God, which means God is political.  There is a wealth of material in scripture backing this statement up.

So, since God is political, the church is political.  The question is not if the church should be politically active, it is rather how should the church be politically active.  Whether we like it or not, the church is political.  Jesus called us to seek first a kingdom, not a charity.  He taught us to pray “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” not “Thy Salvation come, thy bible-based life skills coaching fix all our issues”.  Jesus Christ, God made flesh, taught us to enter his presence in prayer by proclaiming our commitment to his political agenda.   Could it get any clearer than that?

But most people I know, both church goers and non-church goers, if asked, would probably agree that separating the church from the state is a good idea.  Agnostics and atheists would argue that old superstitions just hold progress back by working against reason and science.  Others would argue that organised religion is oppressive and suffocates human potential.  They would also argue that it is a useless drain on resources, a parasitic institution that diverts money and effort from more useful endeavour.

Christians would argue that enmeshing the church in the state corrupts the church.  They would argue making Christianity the state religion invites pursuit of offices in the church for the purpose of gaining power, prestige and wealth rather than out of a desire to serve God.  Christians also argue that a church embedded in the state becomes just another means at the disposal of rulers to assert control over a population.  Christians argue that the wealth bestowed by the patronage of the state corrupts the Church as money is the root of all evil.  Christians also commonly argue that embedding Christianity in the state works against the work of the holy spirit which invites the free acceptance of salvation as the gift of God as opposed to the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord out of obligation and loyalty to the state religion.

To most modern people in todays’ world the separation of church and state seems perfectly natural, sensible and good.  And yet for most of history it was unthinkable.  For most of history people could not imagine how separating the church from the state could possibly work.  The legitimacy and authority of every government hinged upon it’s status within a society’s organised religion, to separate the state from the church/organised religion would have stripped that state of any legitimate role in the lives of it’s people.  In medieval and early modern Europe the threat of excommunication was taken very seriously by all European rulers for they knew that if they were excommunicated their own communities would turn against them.  Their authority depended upon cooperation with the church.  Echoes of this historical fact can still be clearly seen in the coronation ceremonies of modern monarchs like King Charles.

The separation of church and state is a very recent development in human history.  The history of civilisation stretches back 6,100 years.  For 5,900 civilized societies took the role of organised religion in the state for granted.  In fact, if you look at the story of the emergence of civilised cultures you will find that civilisation was the product of organised religion, organised religion did not develop alongside civilisation or as a consequence of it, human civilisation was created by organised religion.

The first kings were priests given the task of organising the armed defence of civilised communities from the uncivilised nomads who, when they saw the food and material goods that the communities created by organised religion produced, just wanted to take it for themselves.  These priest/generals were called  “Lugals” in the ancient Sumerian tongue and as their temporary military appointments became more permanent they evolved into the first kings.  So, from the very beginning, political power, the state, and organised religion were not two separate things, they were the same thing, they were inseparable.

The church/state was responsible for the greatest leap forward in the whole of human history – what is known as the neolithic revolution that saw the establishment of the first civlisations and so the unleashing of human potential to an extent that was hitherto impossible.  It was the greatest transformation of human society in all of history and it led to such innovations as literacy, mathematics, astronomy, irrigation, all forms of occupational specialisation, the wheel, the sail boat… and I could go on. 

When I hear people say how much they hate religion, I look at them and think, well that’s a funny thing because it sure looks like you enjoy three regular meals a day and a bit of security

I have attended teachings of a Christian ministry called the “Father Heart Ministries” which focus’s upon the revelation of our place in the heart of God.  One of the prominent teachers in that ministry, Frank Ngaia, uses a simple question when encouraging people to see themselves as God sees them and to ignore the lies they keep telling themselves about themselves.  Frank advises to ask the question “who told you that?”.  I have found it to be a really useful way of assessing my own thoughts and attitudes.  So, if you think that the separation of church and state is a good idea, my question to you is… who told you that?

The separation of the church from the state was first enforced by the anti-Christian French Revolution in the late eighteenth century and spread throughout Europe from there.  So how has that turned out?  How is that going for God’s Kingdom?  How is that going for Europe?  So, why would any modern Christian still be on board with that?

To separate the church from the state is to separate the church from it’s mission.

So, that is the subject of the next “Different Voices” discussion.  How should your church be politically active?