Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Churches in politics
Section B. Constitutional/governance

In an increasingly secular world, does the Church still have anything left to say about social and political issues, or should it be confined to the realm of private spirituality? And if it does have anything to say about political matters, will anybody listen? Or is it the case that, in a multicultural society, only democratically elected politicians should have the authority to shape social and economic policy?

Pros

[1] Religion and politics cannot be compartmentalised. The idea that there is a clear line between religion and politics is recent in origin and wholly artificial. From the Hebrew prophets, through Jesus to Mohammed, religious leaders have always linked spiritual progress with social change. The fight against poverty, disease, social injustice and economic inequalities as practised and preached by Jesus, for example, is an explicitly political agenda. It is right that churches should continue to take political stands. There is no such thing as ’private’ morality or religion — these are inherently social phenomena.

[2] Religion has played a progressive role in society through history and retains it today. The first attack on the divine right of kings can be found in the Book of Kings in the Bible. Slavery was first prohibited by Jewish religious leaders 2,500 years before Lord Wilberforce. From Martin Luther King to the Beveridge Report, it has been religion that has inspired society’s betterment.

[3] Religious leaders do not rely on the support of companies, organisations or political parties. In times of political consensus, we need such people to defend those in society who have no voice. Religious leaders can fulfil a unique role as genuine critics of the abuses and wrongs of the secular world — a position that no secular figure could take without being accused of hypocrisy. This is the traditional role that was played by Biblical prophets such as Jeremiah and Hosea.

Cons

[1] Politics and religion are separate spheres of life. Religious leaders can seek to influence people’s private moral and spiritual needs and politicians should be left to deal with broader social and political matters. Church attendances are plummeting. Standards of private morality are at an all-time low. These are the priorities that religious leaders should be tackling, leaving debates about health service reform, social security systems, defence spending and international aid to the politicians who are elected to make decisions on these matters.

[2] The encroachment of religion into politics is inherently dangerous in the modern world. The accountability of political leaders is essential to avoid corruption and self-interest — yet religious leaders can by their very nature not be accountable in the same way. It is true that in the past, religion and politics were inextricably linked, but that is no longer the case. In the modern democratic world, there are secular political mechanisms to ensure representation for the poor and underprivileged without religious interference.

[3] The potential political power of religious leaders is vast. For this reason alone, they are open to ’hijacking’ by political extremists. The extremes and certainties of religion have no place in a political life that must be about compromise and pragmatism. Democratically unaccountable religious leaders straying into politics can be responsible for whipping up public outcry by peddling their extreme and zealous views (e.g. in favour of the death penalty or against homosexual marriages). Religious leaders should restrict themselves to preaching to their flocks about religion and morality.

Possible motions

This House believes that religion is and should be a political force.

This House believes that religion and politics should mix.

Related topics

Disestablishment of the Church of England

Monarchy, abolition of

God, existence of

Religious teaching in schools