The Churches Are Getting Involved
“IT’S time for godly folk to have an input into government.” These are the words of a California pastor. Do you agree with him, that religious people should get involved in politics? Many do, as they view with dismay the falling standards of morality, the growth of crime, the economic decline, the international tensions, the poverty and starvation and the spreading unbelief around the world.
True, many of these problems are the responsibility of governments. Yet governments are often helpless. Worse, many are tainted by scandals. Reports of corruption and deception have weakened people’s trust in their governments to the extent that many agree with the middle-aged mother who said: “I’m beginning to think the whole political system has become corrupt and immoral.”
Hence, it is felt by many sincere persons that religion should try to help out. They feel that religion represents God, and they believe—rightly—that more than human know-how is needed to solve man’s problems. They pray for help, but are not sure how God will help them. They feel that perhaps it is up to them to do something. Hence, they like to see “godly folk” getting involved in politics in order to bring an element of “godliness” into government. Ministers, priests and religiously committed individuals are increasingly active in politics.
Is this the best way for religion to help today? Let us consider what some of these religionists are doing, and see what they hope to accomplish.
Religion in Politics
In the United States some religions maintain lobbyists right in the nation’s capital, to try to influence lawmakers. What do they hope to accomplish? A Catholic priest explained: “We feel we have a lot of long-term influence on the moral attitudes that set the political tone for the nation.” A Protestant minister added: “We ought to be able to say to the government: ‘you have done something wrong; you have chosen the wrong path to take.’”
Such lobbying has been going on in a discreet way for a long time. A more recent phenomenon—and much less discreet—has been the emergence of special-interest groups organized by Protestant fundamentalists. These groups, such as the Moral Majority in the United States, have expressed themselves forcefully on such issues as support for Israel, homosexual rights, the Panama Canal treaty, Taiwan security and abortion. Politicians have learned not to underestimate their influence. Senators who supported programs unpopular with them have been voted out of office.
The World Council of Churches, based in Europe, became involved in politics in another way. Since 1970, the Council has donated a reported $3 million (U.S.) to various political revolutionary movements.
Again, some ordained ministers seek elective office in government. However, a recent newspaper headline exemplified what is perhaps the ultimate in political involvement: “Philippine priests leave parishes, join rebellion.” The article told of four Catholic priests who joined a Communist guerrilla movement. Such active involvement in radical movements is widespread, but a heavy price has been paid. In Latin America it has led to the killing, abduction or exile of an estimated 850 priests, nuns and lay persons during the past decade.
How do you view such political activity by religious leaders? Would you applaud it? Or are you doubtful? It may be that you do not object to religion’s discreetly speaking out on political issues but are uneasy about priests’ joining in the revolutions.
Yet, if we agree to any religious involvement in politics, it is difficult to say where it should stop. If it is acceptable for some ordained ministers to lobby discreetly in a nation’s capital for programs they feel are good, why is it wrong for Protestant fundamentalists to organize state-wide pressure groups in order to promote programs that are important to them? Also, if the Moral Majority can speak out for the defense of Israel, why cannot the World Council of Churches contribute money to military causes they favor? And if that is not wrong, why is it objectionable if, instead of paying money for other people to take risks, Catholic priests should fight and die for causes they support in South America and Asia?
And yet . . . do you detect something wrong with this chain of logic? Is this really the best way for religion to help mankind in these difficult days?
It is not new for religion to try to influence politics. In the following chart are listed some notable occasions when religion and politics mixed.
[Box on page 4]
◻ In 1095 Pope Urban II launched an appeal for Western armies to “go to the aid of their brothers in the Christian East” against the Turks. The result was the first Crusade and the Crusading movement, which for two centuries resulted in great bloodshed.
◻ In the 12th century Pope Adrian IV officially granted the land of Ireland to the English king, Henry II, thus validating (in the eyes of the faithful) the English takeover of that country.
◻ In 1524 the peasants in Germany—partly in response to the teachings of Martin Luther—revolted. Although initially favorable to their movement, in 1525 Luther recommended that the princes of Germany crush the “Rapacious, Murderous Hordes of Peasants.” The princes followed his advice with great cruelty.
◻ In 1618 the efforts of the king-designate of Bohemia to force Catholicism on a largely Protestant population helped to spark the Thirty Years’ War.
◻ In 1918 churches of Christendom used their influence to support the League of Nations. But that did not make it succeed. After only two decades the world was plunged into the most horrible war in all human history. Now Christendom’s churches have endorsed the United Nations, but the nations are more heavily armed and disunited than ever before.