By Rev. Lyndan Syiem
On Tuesday, 31 May, the Shillong Times editorial page carried an article, ‘Church finally steps out of the purdah,’ which criticized the Church in Meghalaya for being silent over the issue of corruption in government and its perceived proximity to politicians. On the same editorial page was a strong letter “Church and politicians,” accusing church leaders of being “abettors and collaborators of corruption.” Newspaper content shapes public perception; it is therefore impossible for a churchman to remain silent amidst such negative characterization in the media.
While we acknowledge the two writers as experts in their own fields, we cannot accept their blanket generalization of the Church as actively colluding with the political order. This article is however not a rejoinder but seeks to explain the position of the church which Mr. Toki Blah calls, although I respectfully disagree, “the most powerful institution in our state.” Many church members will accept the truth in many of the points raised by the two writings, and that we ought to introspect and change where our flaws and failings have been identified.
However the framing of the argument on church and state is fallacious on three counts: the assumption that the church is a monolithic whole; that there is widespread and systemic collaboration with political personages; that there is no internal resistance to the supposed collusion between church and state.
‘Ecclesiae et civitatis,’ which is Latin for ‘Church and state,’ was the vexed question of the 4th century when Emperor Constantine unexpectedly became a Christian. This was the turning point when the persecuted church of the Crucified One suddenly became the state religion of Constantine’s re-unified Roman Empire. Now that persecution had been replaced by patronage, the church had to answer some difficult questions:
Was the church now formally identified with the state, so that their interests converge and eventually merge? Or does the state continue to be the demonic empire of Nero and Diocletian, with coercion being replaced by enticement, so that the faithful ought to remain suspicious of the state? Or should the church acknowledge the state but maintain polite distance? … cooperation without collaboration, consenting but also criticizing.
The above three questions are a journalistic simplification of the three basic positions on church-state relations in church history: Collaboration, Confrontation and Conditional acceptance. The article and the letter assume the Collaboration model based on the actions, or inaction, of certain members of the hierarchy. My experience however is that there are many individual church members who strongly adhere to the Confrontation model – witness the recent opposition to COVID restrictions and conspiracy theories about the vaccine.
However, I would argue that the majority of Christians across various churches follow the model of Conditional acceptance of the state. While this is usually the silent majority, their aversion to mixing religion with politics is evident from regular conversations and from voting patterns where candidates from majority groups and denominations are not always guaranteed election from majority-dominated constituencies.
Our readers must also be made aware that the Church in Meghalaya is not a monolithic whole, with a common platform for social and political issues. There are two large denominations, the Presbyterian Church and the Roman Catholic Church, and the smaller Church of God in the Khasi-Jaiñtia Hills; the two large churches, Baptist and Roman Catholic, in the Garo Hills; plus many small, non-denominational churches and groups across the state.
Yes, churches do receive government schemes and financial assistance for their schools, playgrounds, institutions and social-service projects. However, other religious groups and village and locality institutions are also beneficiaries of similar schemes and assistance. No, there is generally no demand made or assurance given that allocation of schemes should translate into votes. Just natural gratitude. Yes, there may be cases where individual leaders “abdicate their responsibilities” as Mr. Philip Marwein says, but such conduct is certainly not approved behaviour in our churches.
While there are individual cases of what he calls “hobnobbing” with political leaders, our esteemed readers must recognize that there is also an inbuilt inner resistance to the conflation of interests of church and state. Actually, some of the popular preachers often criticize the government, to the extent that the congregation is sometimes left squirming in their pews. In general, most church leaders try to maintain a respectful distance between church and politics, being careful that we do not become identified with any political party or personage.
There is theological depth in the words of Jesus: “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and unto God what belongs to God.” If the coin bore the image of Tiberius Caesar, the implication is that the human heart bears the image and likeness of God. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century interpreted this teaching on paying taxes as also approving cooperation with the government. The great Augustine of Hippo, respected by both Catholics and Protestants, wrote in the early 5th century that both the ‘City of God’ and the ‘City of Man’ have been instituted by God, and that both serve his will and purpose.
Martin Luther in the 16th century explained it thus: “We must divide all the children of Adam into two classes; the first belong to the kingdom of God, the second to the kingdom of the world. …These two kingdoms must be sharply distinguished, and both be permitted to remain; the one to produce piety, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds; neither is sufficient in the world without the other.” From Luther’s ‘two-kingdom doctrine,’ John Calvin further developed and systematized his teaching on ‘separatio ecclesiae et civitatis.’ ‘Separation of church and state’ remains the official Reformed position, as well as of other denominations and groups.
The Book of Acts portrays the early church as obedient to the government and respectful of authority. Calvin taught that since civil government is divinely instituted, Christians ought to obey the law, pay their taxes, and honour the government. The 16th century Reformers viewed rebellion and anarchy as far greater dangers than government incompetence.
This however does not imply subservience to the government and meek acquiescence to its agenda. The Apostle Paul protested against his ill-treatment, and as a Roman citizen appealed directly to Caesar. John Calvin was expelled from the Geneva from 1538 till 1541 because his reforms were considered too strict and impartial towards commoners and aristocrats. But Geneva descended into chaos and the city council recalled Calvin for his second, definitive tenure from 1541 until his death in 1564.
Christians are therefore not taught slavish obedience to the official narrative. The Church in Meghalaya has not surrendered to political patronage and remains committed to combating injustice and corruption. However, the manner of the Church’s intervention is not that of pressure groups on the streets and constant public criticism on the media. It effects change not by polarization between people and the government; polarization is an easy but ultimately destructive path. Our church membership includes both political leaders and common people, bureaucrats and blue-collar workers. Therefore the church’s preferred mode of intervention is bridge-building, private counsel of egregious offenders and advocacy. Such activities do not make front page news but rest assured of our commitment to the poor, the powerless and the dispossessed.