Church

Church is Not the Enemy of Democracy and Secularism

By Fr Mathew Thankachen O. Praem. –

The various administrative bodies of the Church are aimed at making use the varied gift revealed in and through the members of the Church. In the contemporary Democratic era, the hierarchy need not be any more identified with Monarchical symbols unlike in the past, rather it is the Apostolic succession and Corporal Revelation as one Body of Christ that an ordinary politician or laity may not understand. Hence, the Church has a democratic process in its functioning, incomparable with the civic concept of “majority, minority, civic rights and socialism”. The political concept of democracy is concerned only of ‘minority and majority’.

Also read: Ideology of Democracy and Secularism from a Biblical Perspective

History and rationale prove majority always doesn’t mean right and true neither minority means wrong and false. The direct democracy prevailing in protestant Churches and Jacobite/Orthodox is not free from ‘petty politics’ bringing about scandals in faith and morals for the church as a whole. There are some catholic radicals who think, “the other side of the hill is more greenery”.

As I already mentioned, the ‘Corporeal revelation’ needs to consider not only the revelation of God to the hierarchy, but to the faithful as well. In this manner, democracy in the context of the Church becomes “a collective search for the will/ power of God” to guide and rule the Church and the world.

Rejecting the Monarchies

Jesus in his historical time seems rejecting the monarchies as this system is not helping to build up the kingdom of God. He calls Herod, “that fox” and warns his disciples to be beware of the “yeast of Pharisees”. It is only on the question of tax paying he strikes a balance by stating “give to Pilate what belongs to Pilate and to God what belongs to God”. Yet a democratic element is evident when he says “who is bound to pay the tax? A foreigner or children, indirectly hinting the impending freedom of Israel from the Roman slavery by the power of the sons of the soil.

Secularism on the other is a very powerful weapon Jesus fought with in the monolithic Judaism. For a Jew, his “brother” and neighbour was only a Jew. The rest of the world was considered “pagan”, in fact, “infidel”, an enemy. Jesus asks, “What more do you deserve if you love only your brother or lend to those who are able to re-pay you? Even the pagans do so……. Love your enemy.”

Restoring the Spirit of Love

Jesus, although in every sense a Jew who professed “not to annihilate a letter of the Law” was teaching them to go beyond their law of “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” in the light of the “Law of Love” for God is Love. His life on earth was a literal witness to “restore the Spirit of love” to go and look beyond.

In the multi-religious and cultural context of India, secularism is interpreted as “not to show any partiality or favour” to any religious groups while inviting the governance to “to look above and beyond “any particular tenets of religions, and at the same time, permitting every religion “to believe and propagate” what they profess. It also indicates non-interference of political administration (state) in the religious affairs and vice-versa while respecting each other’s autonomy.

The communist interpretation of ‘secularism’ as ‘annihilation of religion or non-affiliation to religions or rituals” or doing away the significance of religions altogether as is in China or in the past Soviet Union is a misinterpretation of secularism intended by the fathers of the Constitution in the Indian context. It is a deviation from the original context.

It is quite evident from the above Biblical context that Church is not the enemy of democracy and secularism in principle. On the one hand, we find Jesus leading a very simple life, mingling with the poor, marginalized and sinners, empowering them spiritually and materially and on the other, having his own “identity” of “person and mission” entrusted to him by the Father that made people wonder of his unique” authority”.

To what extent the Church succeeded in leading the ‘heavenly pilgrimage’ should be a matter of introspection. However, any attempt by the political parties or Church to divert from the original values to suit to their interpretation of history will only lead to discord.