It Is All Around Us!

“The words ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ were yoked in news stories throughout 1984 in all parts of the world. . . . Anglican bishop Desmond Tutu [was] a symbol of the clash between church and state over apartheid . . . In a benediction at [a political] convention, Jerry Falwell, fundamentalist leader of Moral Majority, referred to Reagan and Vice-Pres. George Bush as ‘God’s instruments in rebuilding America.’”​—1985 Britannica Book of the Year.

“From Poland to the Philippines . . . there are bishops and priests speaking out against the State in which they live. The Church is not just the place where God is worshipped, but where dissent is fomented.”​—Glasgow Herald, January 3, 1985.

Catholic clergy in Latin America, under the banner of ‘liberation theology,’ are deeply involved in trying to oust regimes deemed oppressive to the poor.”

◼ Seoul, Republic of Korea, March 9, 1986: “The Roman Catholic primate of South Korea, Stephen Cardinal Kim Sou Hwan, gave his support today to opposition party demands for swift constitutional changes.”

◼ August 18, 1986: ‘The candidate is an ordained and militant Protestant minister, crusading to wrench his party from the clutches of the moderates he scorns. Who is this galvanizing and polarizing force in U.S. presidential politics? Ironically, the description applies equally well to two clergymen: Pat Robertson on the Republican right and Jesse Jackson on the Democratic left.’ ‘A fund-raising letter referring to the success [Robertson’s] delegate candidates were having began “The Christians have won! . . . What a breakthrough for the Kingdom!”’

◼ Brasília, Brazil, July 3, 1986: “The church has already emerged as the strongest critic of the new civilian Government . . . As a result, church-state relations are again in turmoil, with officials charging priests with radicalizing the situation in the countryside and some bishops accusing the Government of resorting to tactics of ‘persecution and defamation.’”

◼ September 25, 1984: “Iran’s Khomeini represents the forces of Shia Muslim fundamentalism and teaches that Islam should dictate politics, economics and military strategy.”

◼ April 7, 1985: “A majority of Anglicans think that the Church of England should keep out of politics, according to a Gallup Poll conducted exclusively for The Sunday Telegraph.”

◼ October 4, 1986: “Mexico’s Roman Catholic church is lining up behind the growing opposition to the country’s ruling [party]. The church made its boldest venture into politics in July . . . The bishops proposed to cancel Sunday masses in protest at the vote-rigging; but the Pope intervened.”

◼ Washington, D.C., U.S.A., July 6, 1986: “Christian evangelical leaders are using their money, spiritual convictions and millions of members to do battle in the secular arena​—and are playing an increasingly influential role in American politics.”

Why Do the Clergy Mix in Politics?

SINCE you are affected, you have good reason to ask, “Why?”

Understandably, no single motive applies to all the priests, ministers, and other religious leaders who have mixed in politics. Some have motivations that most people would condemn. Others may have admirable reasons, such as concern for the poor.

Your having insight into their motives will put you in a better position to consider God’s view of the matter and to appreciate what he says the future holds.

Position, Profit, and Politics

To understand one reason why clergymen mix in politics, let us consider some first-century religious leaders. These men, the high priest and members of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, made up the Jewish high court. Being upset over Jesus’ having resurrected Lazarus, they reasoned: “If we let [Jesus] alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”​—John 11:48.

“Our place and our nation.” Yes, they worried about their position, influence, and authority, with any nationalistic interests being secondary. (Matthew 23:2-8) By currying favor with politicians, some clergymen have gained a standing of importance. For many, this also has been the road to a life of luxury. In fact, the last book of the Bible depicts “a woman” called “Babylon the Great,” who was noted for “the power of her shameless luxury.” The Bible and history show that she symbolizes false religion earth wide.​—Revelation 17:1-5; 18:3.

Consider now evidence that this is why some clergymen mix in politics. The book Religion and Revolution tells us: “Between 1774 and 1790, 173 of the 192 French bishops belonged to the nobility. About one-half of the episcopate lived in Paris and enjoyed the splendor of the French capital. Cardinal Polignac died in 1741 without ever having visited the archdiocese to which he had been nominated fifteen years earlier. A growing spirit of laxness also afflicted the monasteries many of which were very rich.” The upper clergy lived in luxury, while many parish priests were in poverty.

Mexico provides another example. In 1810 village priest Miguel Hidalgo led a fight for independence from Spain. Professor Guenter Lewy explains: “The pope in Rome and practically the entire episcopate condemned [those Mexican] patriots. The hypocritical ease with which the upper clergy [later] turned into ardent supporters of independence . . . was all too apparent and helped create the image of the church as a special interest group that could not be trusted. . . . The church was rich in lands and buildings, estimated by some to include more than one-half the real property of the nation.”

Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or of any other faith​—would not all of us agree that clergymen should not mix in politics to secure an exalted place? Yet, that is exactly what often happens.

From Nazi Germany to Today

The Nazi period offers more insight into religion’s mixing in politics. Many thinking people have wondered, ‘How did Catholic and Lutheran clergymen deal with Hitler and his brutal Nazis?’

Basically, it was by support or at least coexistence. Few religious voices rose in protest. Professor T. A. Gill writes about one exception. “[The theologian Dietrich] Bonhoeffer found out at last what his father and brothers had been telling him since he was fifteen: the church was not important enough anymore in the things that matter most to justify giving his life to it.” Wearied by the church’s support of Hitler or its passivity, Bonhoeffer joined a plot to kill Hitler. But Bonhoeffer was an exception.

Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity describes the norm: “Both churches, in the main, gave massive support to the regime. . . . Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long terms [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time. Of the Catholics, one bishop was expelled from his diocese, and another got a short term for currency offences.” As to those who stuck to their principles, Johnson continues: “The bravest were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. They refused any cooperation with the Nazi state.”

Since then, other clergymen have cooperated with brutal regimes so as to maintain their place of prominence, power, and wealth. An editorial in the National Catholic Reporter said: “The story of the Catholic church’s failings in Argentina is one of silence and complicity with a ruthless military regime, one of the worst in recent history. . . . Church prelates were thus in positions to speak out and make a difference, perhaps even strip the regime of its religious justification. Yet, almost to the last man, they said nothing. Some, including clerics in military uniform, endorsed the torture and killings.”​—April 12, 1985.

Civil Rights, Social Justice

As mentioned earlier, however, some religious leaders are highly admired for their active role in politics for other reasons.

An example from the United States is the Baptist minister Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil-rights leader in a long crusade against racial discrimination. Other clergymen have been in the forefront of struggles for the rights of women and certain minorities. Priests and ministers have turned politically active in support of causes such as voting rights, equal pay for equal work, and fair employment opportunities. Most recently, a “theology of liberation” has been promoted to ease the suffering of the poor, such as by distributing land to the impoverished.

How do you feel about religious leaders’ involving themselves in politics in order to promote social action or “secular humanism,” as such issues are sometimes labeled? Even some clerics are uncomfortable with what they see happening. Keith Gephart, a fundamentalist clergyman, commented: “When I was growing up, I always heard that churches should stay out of politics. Now it seems almost a sin not to get involved.” A newspaper writer on religious issues noted: “Beginning in the early 1970s, fundamentalist Christians have gradually come to believe that political activism is a duty.”

Even if the causes seem meritorious, consider how far such steps are taking the clergy, and see if you approve.

What Is Liberation Theology Doing?

Gustavo Gutiérrez, a Catholic priest in Peru, is widely credited with developing “liberation theology” in response to the plight of the poor. This trend is widespread among the clergy in Latin America and elsewhere. England’s Manchester Guardian Weekly reported that the Bishop of Durham attacked the government’s political philosophy and thus urged “advancing the cause of a ‘liberation theology.’”

Is such a theology just an emphasis on concern for the poor, as urged in the Bible? Hardly. According to the Guardian, the bishop admits that “British liberation theology will take some of the diagnoses of Marxism very seriously.” This involves interpreting the class struggle of the poor by using Marxist reasoning. With what consequences?

The National Catholic Reporter (July 4, 1986) carried the headline “Brazil’s Land Fight Pits Church Against State.” A fact underlying this conflict is that just a small number of “large landowners control 83 percent of the land.” Clergy-led rallies and marches are part of the “land fight.” And “fight” is a fitting word. The article said that “218 people were killed in more than 700 land conflicts last year, including Father Josimo Tavares, a Brazilian priest and land-reform leader, who was assassinated June 11.”

Liberation theology is gaining popularity. A New York Times editorial acknowledged that the official Vatican position is that clerics should not be involved in partisan politics, but it further said that the Vatican “also embraces liberation theology’s fundamental principle: that the Christian Gospel justifies the struggles of the poor for political freedom and control over their lives.”

[Picture on page 7]

Martin Luther King, Jr., was prominent among religious leaders crusading against racial discrimination

[Credit Line]

UPI/​Bettmann Newsphotos

We can learn something from how Jesus responded: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.” (Mark 12:13-17) In contrast, 225 Roman Catholic bishops in the United States voted last November to adopt a 115-page economic statement that said, in part: “The tax system should be reformed to reduce the burden on the poor. . . . Those with relatively greater financial resources should pay a higher rate of taxation.”

Think what we may about our taxes, Jesus remained neutral as to the politics of taxes. His disciples, such as the apostle Paul, did likewise. (Romans 13:1-7) Even on a hot social issue such as slavery, they were neutral. You can imagine how easy it would have been for a Christian, moved by kindness, to rail against slavery, even as clergymen now take sides on legalized abortion, apartheid, women’s rights, and so on. But true Christians remained neutral!

Revelation portrays religion’s influencing and using the political element as being like a ‘woman sitting upon a wild beast.’ Does that not suggest to you how God views this mixing by the clergy?​—Revelation 17:1-5.

Here is how even some human observers are judging the matter:

Malachi Martin, a Vatican scholar, saw that clerics “who take up political and social causes are failing in their No. 1 role: to be representatives of Jesus Christ.” He said: “Bishops, for example, do not have a mandate to write about economics or tell the president to not send missiles to Europe.”

But what will happen when politicians and the people tire of the clergy’s meddling? Last year the journal Liberty discussed how Emperor Constantine in the fourth century ‘mixed politics and religion, creating a “church-state” beast.’ It said about the situation today: “Just as in Constantine’s day, the church is using the state to achieve its own ends.”​—Italics ours.

God’s Word makes clear what the outcome will be. The time is coming when the political element will turn on and devastate the world empire of false religion, which has long used politics to its own ends. Revelation 19:2 says that this will be an expression of God’s judgment.

[Box on page 10]

“It’s time to get politics out of the pulpit and the pulpit out of politics. Religious officials have every right to whatever secular views they hold. [But] the pulpit is misused when it is used for secular causes.”​—U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Langhorne Motley, June 1985.