Publications

THE CHURCH: TOO MUCH POLITICS THESE DAYS?

Dr. Peter Henriot

In the lively public debates that have raged over the past several months, the church has played a very active role.  This fact has in turn sparked debates and some strong criticisms that the church is too much involved in politics. 

President Chiluba has recently counselled church organisations to stay above partisan politics and desist from taking sides on issues. 

Some critics have said that church bodies like EFZ, ZEC and CCZ should have consulted all their members before making statements at the Oasis Forum.

And others have urged the church only to pray for peace and not to get actively involved in secular disputes.

I think that all these three comments raise some very significant issues that call for good clarifications that will strengthen the role of the church in Zambia, especially during this important election year.  

These clarifications touch the distinctions between (1) political and partisan, (2) prophetic and consensus, and (3) prayers and involvement.

POLITICAL AND PARTISAN

It is very evident from both the Old Testament and the New Testament that religious leaders have to take sides on political issues.  By that I mean that they have to speak clearly about the justice dimensions of what goes on in society.   “Political” refers to the events of the society – economic programmes, legal rules, rights and duties of citizens, social conditions, etc. 

The church would be false to the tradition of the prophets who chided rulers who abused their subjects (for example, see Isaiah 1: 10-17) if it did not take sides in political disputes over the exercise of legitimate authority.  The church would deny its fellowship with Jesus Christ who had a special care for the poor and oppressed (for example, see Luke 4: 14-21) if it did not take sides in political controversies over budget priorities that affect the 80% of impoverished Zambians.

But what church leadership should not do is become “partisan,” that is, endorsing a particular party or a particular candidate for office.  Individual church members can – and should – be partisan, guided by the emphasis on justice and concern for the poor found in the church’s social teachings.  But the leaders of churches, or the official church bodies, should restrain from supporting specific partisan positions or individuals.

I believe it is fair to say that honest analysis of the facts would reveal that at no time during the current debate over constitutional issues did the ZEC, EFZ or CCZ take a partisan position.  They argued on principles, not about personalities; they called for universal legal considerations, not for particular biased positions.  Indeed, their actions were a repetition of the very steps that President Chiluba has repeatedly praised during the transition from the Second Republic to the Third Republic in 1991.

To be true to its mission, the church in Zambia must indeed be political, not partisan.

PROPHETIC AND CONSENSUAL

When Jesus sent out his disciples to share the Good News (see Matthew 28: 20), he gave religious leaders the authority and responsibility to speak out, even if what they said was not popular and might arouse disappointment.   This is called the “prophetic” task of leadership. 

This is the task of communicating the authentic church teaching that challenges society and individuals to live justly and peacefully.  When such prophetic teaching is required, the leadership does not consult with the members to see what their opinions are.  It does not take a “poll” to find out whether the majority of the members are for or against such teaching.

On the other hand, there are statements that might come from some organisation that has polled all its members and can therefore say that it is presenting a “consensual” opinion.  The majority of members, perhaps even all the members, are in general agreement with what is being said.  To get this kind of common consent, however, may be very difficult.  Therefore there may be many times when the organisation is silent in the face of controversy.

Obviously, the church cannot be expected to always teach only consensual positions.  For example, the church in South Africa would have forever remained in stony silence about apartheid if their prophetic voice had to give way to consensual statements!  Rejection of racism was not the general consensus of many churches.  But such rejection was clearly the prophetic voice of great figures like Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Catholic Archbishop Dennis Hurley and of statements from the main church bodies.

In the recent debate in Zambia, church statements were sometimes criticised as not being representative of all the church members.  No poll had been taken!  But in speaking on issues of justice, fairness, honesty, legality, truth and constitutional order, we need prophetic voices.  Thank God the church provided that!

To be true to its mission, the church in Zambia must indeed be prophetic, not simply consensual.

PRAYERS AND INVOLVEMENT

Another complaint heard recently was that in the face of the serious crises being experienced in the country the church should confine itself to prayers and should not get involved in the debates and other activities.  If there are political disputes, the proper role of the church should only be to call for prayers.  It should stay on a purely “spiritual” level and should not get actively caught up in what is going on. 

But while it is certainly true that prayer is always good, praying is like faith.  And scripture tells us clearly that without deeds faith is certainly dead!  (See James 2: 17).  

I’m often reminded that Jesus said very clearly: “Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called daughters and sons of God.”   (Matthew 5: 9)  He didn’t say, “Blessed are the peace sayers, or the peace prayers, or the peace hopers” but “Blessed are the peace makers” – those who get involved in the work of peace and in the promotion of the justice that is required if we are to have true peace. 

To call for the church only to pray at times such as we have recently experienced in Zambia would be equal to asking it to withdraw from meaningful participation in the real world.  Doing that would certainly be a denial of the church’s true mission.

We should remember that in 1991 the church did not confine itself only to prayers at the National Cathedral.  The church also got actively involved in calling political leaders to the Cathedral to solve their differences at a meeting the church managed and chaired. And it was this active involvement that enabled the church to play the role so strongly praised by President Chiluba, who said the churches acted as the “midwife” of the Third Republic.

To be true to its mission, the church in Zambia must indeed get actively involved, not merely offering prayers.

Dr. Peter Henriot is a Jesuit priest, political scientist, and lecturer in “The Churches’ Social Teaching” at St. Dominic’s Major Seminary, Lusaka.  He directs the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, Lusaka.

[Published in NATIONAL MIRROR, Lusaka, Zambia, May 26-June 1 2001]