The encyclical circulated by the Archbishop of Delhi recently pointing to the climate of gloom and oppression in the country and asking his congregation to pray that the 2019 elections should put forth a better government has raised the hackles of a section of the media and the BJP-RSS. Questions are being asked as to why the church is meddling with politics.

The issue of church and politics has always been an uneasy one. Yet if politics is all about the life of man, then the church should be involved in that rather than give sermons on spirituality. The question is how much involvement is called for. Exhortations from the Vatican and other church platforms such as the Lausanne Covenant speak not just of social responsibility but lays stress on the church’s socio-political involvement.

The word “political” causes red light warnings. The church has been involved in health and education programmes but has steered clear of politics. Whenever the church involves itself in political action there are howls of protest, more from within than outside the church. Several issues are at play in this controversy and the waters of debate are further muddied by failure to distinguish between church and politics or the right interface between the two.

First, the word politics has been too heavily tainted by the sleaze and misdeeds of politicians across the world and their abuse of power. Christians don’t want their clergy to muddy themselves lest they lose their moral integrity. Second, the relationship between the social and political are interlinked and the two cannot be separated. Third, it is important to ask why people oppose church involvement in politics and what are they trying to guard the church against? Fourth, we also need to ask who will take up Christian political responsibility and who does that domain belong to.

Politics involves our life in human society. It is the is art of living together in community although the narrow definition of politics is that it is the science of government — concerned with development and adoption of specific policies with a view to getting right policies legislated. That, in short, is expected to lead to social change.

So was Jesus Christ involved in politics? In the narrow sense he was not; he never formed a political party; never adopted a political programme and never organised political protests. In short, Christ took no steps to influence the policies of Caesar, Pilate or Herod. In fact Christ renounced a political career.

But in the broader sense Christ’s ministry was political in that He challenged old values and standards and way of doing things and suggested radical changes and asked his followers to do the same. Christ’s teachings had political implications. He offered alternatives to the status quo and offered people the hope that things can change.

Since Christians are followers of Christ they should be asking themselves how Christ would want them to respond to the crises of governance today. Would Christ want his followers to be involved in social service or would he want them to gird their loins and get into social action? Social service involves charity work such as relieving human needs, philanthropy, ministering to individuals and families. Social action, on the other hand, means removing the causes of human needs through political and economic interventions and by attempting to transform the structures of injustice in society and governance through a quest for justice.

Socio-political action therefore looks beyond persons to structures. For instance if people are slipping into poverty, social action would mean finding the reasons for the same and addressing them through political action. The church should be a liberating agent rather than just a charitable institution. Helping people in a particular situation is a one-off action. It does not change the situation and hence it is like condoning the status quo.

If Christians are harassed, their rights curtailed and the so-called majority religious community is aggressively seeking to prevent them from practising their faith, then Christians should be thinking of social action to ensure that the fundamental right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution is not subverted by the government in power.

Unfortunately, I have not read any serious critique by Christian writers on the current dispensation’s propensity to demean minorities. Why are Christians on the defensive?  When the church or its members take a public stand on some issues, then they must have enough faith to bear the consequences of their actions. Right now, Christians only seem to be reacting with only one or two voices speaking out to condemn atrocities against priests.

Political engagement requires certain tools. We need trained political thinkers in the church who can go beyond the normal, pedantic preaching and enable our youth to think critically. Today, Christians are caught in a situation where they escape, engage or accommodate. To engage they will need the tools of that engagement. Engagement means getting their hands dirty, sore and worn in the process. The escape is easy but not the right stance. To accommodate the current government’s narrow vision of India and its attempt to impose a monotheistic culture is not what Christ would want.

But the reality is that the church is not rising to the occasion when it should. There is a culture of corruption that has embedded itself in Christian politicians and those running the government. Church leaders, unfortunately, do not dare challenge the corrupt who misuse money meant to promote education and health care; to provide good roads and empower people to come out of poverty.

The rise in poverty in the North-eastern states is commensurate to the corruption in those governing the respective states. Corruption makes people cynical that nothing can change ad things will remain the same. It makes church attendance a ritual and a mere uniform of another social club. If this is Christianity today then it certainly is not what Christ gave up his life for.

In Meghalaya for instance, 76 per cent of rural folk are now landless. This writer has written extensively on this issue but the church does not seem to have a view on this. Perhaps the need to maintain the church and its missionary work through donations and tithes from the corrupt has turned it spineless.

Today the church needs to produce more lawyers, trained activists, RTI groups that are committed to the cause of spreading Christian values. These are the tools of political engagement with governments and political parties. Christians must appear to be so engaged in the life of the community and in removing the structural deformities, which keep people at subsistence level, that it should not appear as if they are interested only in a change of government in 2019.

Another important question is whether the church is making use of its members with different gifts and callings. Is the church building a cadre of leaders in the socio-political field who will not compromise on the values laid out by Christ?

Walking the talk is much more powerful an example than banal preaching. Oswald Sanders says Christian leadership is a blend of natural and spiritual qualities and Christian leaders must share that vision with the people they lead. One problem with Christianity is its hierarchical nature, which contradicts the tenets of democracy. For Catholics there is an ambivalence of sorts. Who do they obey? The State or the Vatican? These ambiguities need to be sorted out.

The word “socio-political” has several connotations. Look at the devastation caused to the environment through coal and limestone mining. Has the church been able to convince coal and limestone mine owners to take up environmental responsibility since many of them are also church members? Mining has destroyed the ecology of many of the North-eastern states but the church has made this a “No-go” area. Why, when irresponsible mining has led to poisoning of rivers, general pollution and is literally killing our eco-system.

Climate change is upon us also through rapid deforestation. Has the church made itself heard? Is the church concerned? The silence of the church on critical issues has rightly earned it harsh criticism.

Certainly the church and its adherents need to seriously introspect on their own value systems, instead of playing the victim.

The writer is Editor of the Shillong Times and can be contacted at patricia.mukhim@gmail.com