Valson Thampu

Jesus was not a politician. That doesn’t mean that he was allergic to politics. It is impossible for ‘two or three to gather together’ – which is Jesus’s idea of the church – and not be political, one way or another, even if that happens ‘in his name’.

Much depends on what we mean by politics. It is common these days to hear politicians accusing each other of ‘playing’ politics, or of politicizing issues. Strangely, not many wonder how it is possible to be a politician and not be political. Also, what is the difference between ‘doing’ politics and ‘playing’ politics? Admittedly, Jesus did not play politics; for he was the truth. So, there is the politics of truth, and there is the politics of playing, or play-acting, truth.

There is a related issue that merits mention here. Should the church be political? Or, shun politics? Can the church be a-political? Should it? If yes, why? Germane to these questions is the assumption that politics is only what is done in the public space by politicians. Whatever they do is political. Also, certain issues are political; others are not. So, we assume that what’s done in the domain of religion is not political. There comes about, as a result, a presumed discontinuity between the religious and the political. Most church leaders are sure to be offended if they are ‘accused’ of being political.

It is doubtful if Jesus would have been offended in a like fashion. He would have, perhaps, asked a counter question, ‘What do you mean by politics?’ Very likely, he’d have gone on to say, ‘I do politics. But my politics is all about life. Life excludes nothing. The choice is not between religion and politics, but between affirmative politics and deformative politics. Religion, not less than politics, is vulnerable to deformativepolitics. You can ‘play’ religion, not less than play politics; and both for the same purpose; except that playing religion is a bit more inelegant than playing politics.’

The deformative element in politics and religion expresses itself as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy issues from distorting truth to suit exigencies. In its pathological form, it projects untruth as truth. The familiar way this happens is by creating a web of illusion to keep reality at bay. In practical terms this amounts to unfurling an alternative world to smoke-screen the lived realities that are inexpedient to address. Today, politicians who want to play politics bank on religion for the purpose and religious leaders who want to play religion seek political patronage.

So, what happens? When Jesus regarded the people, he found them demoralised and drifting, ‘like a sheep without a shepherd’. There was no dearth of religion or religious functionaries then. Indeed, religion had become a crushing burden on them. Here’s what Jesus said about it, ‘They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them’. (Mtt. 23:4, NIV)

The ‘heavy, cumbersome loads’ here pertain to religious obligations -rituals, doctrines, customs and traditions -a mountain of temple-centric do’s and don’ts. But they had little to do with the life of the people and what mattered to them. So, the essence of Jesus’s religious politics was to shift the emphasis from temple-centric, ritualistic, Sabbath-fixated, religiosity to an on-the-move engagement with the plight of the people. While the religiosity of the times oriented people towards the temple, Jesus incarnated an orientation in the opposite direction. Karl Marx understood this best. Jesus was baptised, he said, not in the waters of Jordan, but in the life of the people. Jesus’ political agenda was to lead the people to life in its fullness. Similar promises can be found in the pre-election manifestos of political parties. Every one of them would promise ‘good days’ and, if reminded of it later, would also say, ‘It was a joke’.

The church ‘plays’ politics when it pushes believers into the street with issues in order to bare its political teeth and to remind the powers-that-be that its interests cannot be ignored. Exercising vigilance on behalf of the people as a whole –and not merely Christians- is the calling of the church. As Archbishop William Temple said, the church is the only institution in the world established for the benefit of non-members. It is implied in the discipline Jesus prescribed: ‘Watch and pray’. The church must be a vigilant sentinel of the welfare of the people and the health of the society.

So, unlike most Christians I blame the church for not being political enough; at least for not being political in the Jesus-way. Commitment to life was the guiding light of Jesus’s vision and mission. Politics – which affects life substantially – should be as much a priority as religious agendas in the temple of life called Christianity.