Jesus was political. This simple fact could either surprise or shock because we have been fixated on other things for centuries. “Where two or three are gathered together in my name,” Jesus said, “there I am in their midst.” We can, with equal relevance say, where two or three are gathered together, there is politics in their midst. Church is necessarily political, even if individual Christians have no politics. I have never seen a congregation, among the hundreds I know, free from politics.

Politics, Jesus style is radically different from this. Let me illustrate in the interest of clarity. We are familiar with the Mass, or the Eucharist, or the Holy Communion. It may surprise most people to be told that this was essentially political in intent; but politics as Jesus meant it to be. Here’s my reason for saying this.

Jesus celebrated the Last Supper – the prototype of the Mass or the Lord’s Supper – in a specific context with a clear-cut intent. He lived in a hierarchical society. The mindset of His disciples was incurably inegalitarian. Till the last, even to the door step of the Upper Room, they kept debating as to who among them is the greatest (Lk.9:46, 22:24). This is understandable because the Jewish society was hierarchical. Women were inferior to men and infants did not merit the attention of adults. In the larger context, there was the Roman Empire, which was hierarchical to the core. Worldly politics is inevitably inegalitarian. Wherever power is the shaping principle, and profit the driving motive, inequality is inevitable.

In the Roman context there was a further degree of poignancy to this issue. The chariot of Rome was pulled by slave-power. At the time of Jesus there were seven lakh slaves in Rome. From the time of Plato and Aristotle in Athens, it was assumed as axiomatic that slaves and free people differed not only in their status but also in their souls. Aristotle argued it as axiomatic that some people are meant by Nature to be slaves. They cannot be turned into anything else. This creed was prevalent at the time of Jesus. This context is helpful in understanding Jesus’ mission “to set the captives free;” provided we understand ‘freedom’ in an  Christological sense, which is holistic and comprehensive.

The Last Supper Jesus celebrated was clearly a sacrament of liberation, not of sentimentality. Else, we would be as befuddled as Peter was about it. Seen merely as a ‘fellowship meal,’ the feet-washing ceremony is inappropriate and out of place. Peter is certainly right on this. But he was wrong because he mistook Jesus’ intent for something else. One of the most insuperable hindrances between human beings – an institutionalized form of inequality – was the gulf between a Rabbi and his disciples. It was unthinkable that a Rabbi would wash the feet of his disciples. Now think also of Jesus breaking His body and giving it to His disciples! It points to the greatest of all ironies that ‘the sacred’ is what human beings most use to legitimize and perpetuate inequality. Jesus turns His body and blood into a sacrament not of sanctification, but of equality, which is quintessentially political; something that would shock many even today. Politically, equality is a scandal (cf. VVIP culture); spiritually, it is sanctity.

The fact is that both segments are equidistant – like Indian secularism, if you like – from the true meaning of the sacrament. It is only in the life of the community, with the life of the believer as its mirror, that the sacrament happens, if at all. But, for this to happen, it is necessary that its true meaning is understood and lived. It is anybody’s guess, if it happens.

So, what we are left with is institutionalized priestly authority. But there is another authority: the authority of the State. Divorced from the politics of Jesus, priestly politics gravitated steadily towards the authority of the State. This is evident not only in the so-called Christian countries. We see it today in our own context. The subtle negotiations and transactions that go on between priests and prelates on the one side and the political masters of today are there for all to see.

The need for it must be understood aright. No organized activity can endure or be effective without authority. Remember, Jesus gave his disciples authority? That is the authority priests are meant to exercise. But that authority exists within a well-defined way of life and worldview. It begins to be unreal when the corresponding way of life atrophies and vanishes. An alternate source of authority becomes imperative. That is the authority of Mammon. But Mammon himself is dependent on the State. In a real sense the authority of Mammon is the authority of the State, with money as the counterpart of the Holy Spirit. The need for the church hierarchy to curry favours with the State in the quid pro quo mode increases proportionately as spiritual authority atrophies.

The worldly rich church is most vulnerable, especially in times of crisis, such as ours is. Internal and external pressures mount, aggravating insecurity. A worldly refuge becomes necessary to afford for oneself a semblance of security. (Like what Confucius said, “In God we trust; the rest, strictly in cash!”) There was a time when, like in the case of the Psalmist, “God is our refuge, a present help in trouble.” Now that reality exists only on the tongue. On the ground, something more material and countable is needed.

The State is a Shylock. It must exact its pound of flesh. As Shakespeare’s Lear says, “Nothing comes out of nothing.” This is the creed of power, which knows no charity. It is pound for pound. Sometimes, it is soul for pound. That is when the church begins to sponsor political agendas. Imagine Kerala Christian community being harassed by love-jihad! Whose agenda is this, folks? Imagine Tipu Sultan breathing fire and brimstone against Christianity in Kerala! Let us assume that Tipu wanted to convert all Christians, by force of sword, to Islam. Why has it become an issue now, and not fifty years ago?

I cite the above to illustrate the gulf between the two models of politics. The plight of priests when they migrate from the Jesus model to the political model of doing politics is truly pathetic. But this is a problem not exclusive to priests. Its consequences are sure to hurt all Christians, priest or lay. It has the potential to hollow out the soul of Christianity from within. No external enemy is as dangerous when it comes to corrupting and killing a religion as internal agents are. That is the moral of the thousand years of subjugation India suffered. We were traitors and betrayers. Bharathvarsh could not have been overpowered without her sons bleeding her from within.

We must regain politics Jesus style, so that we become yet again ‘salt with saltiness.’ The alternative is far too horrendous to contemplate. It will be that we are cast out,as Jesus says, and trampled underfoot. The name of that game is NRC+CAA.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.