The Church has been very open on many issues that concern politics, but it has not always been able to get its message across as well effectively. But other times, they managed to accomplish a lot in political matters. It all depends on the definition of success. And the definition of success can be understood quite loosely as it relates to the Church; indeed, most of the time they do not rule to bring about immediate change within politics, but often what they managed to achieve was to highlight the bad actions of the government and make point out to people things that could have happened. otherwise been swept under the rug. We can discern this from the impact that the Church has had worldwide on people through media interest, initiating important discussions and debates and essentially because they have the power and the influence needed to get people to think differently and see things in a different light. Christians should want to serve the common good, that is, want what is best for our society. They want the world to be a place of peace, unity and social justice. And when this is not reflected in the politics of their time, they often try to oppose it. In this text, I will discuss and examine different examples where the Church managed to achieve something in politics, even if it was only to a certain extent. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on 'Why violent video games should not be banned'? Get the original essay The Church has successfully raised concerns and campaigned against the ever-increasing over-reliance on food banks , which have become an acceptable means of survival in the world. United Kingdom, although they were initially only introduced as a temporary means for people who were struggling to feed themselves and their families. Even for people employed in a country as economically developed as Britain, it has become somewhat of the norm to obtain food from food banks. The Church plays a major role, challenging the dependence of governments and citizens and their “unreasonable faith in food banks”. In recent years, the number of people who have no choice but to turn to food banks for food has increased significantly, as shown in the graphs below: The reason why so many people depend on food banks has nothing to do with laziness or because they are lazy people who don't want to work. Most of the time, it is because these people who actually go to work receive very low wages (as shown in the graph on the next page), that they do not even have enough money to buy the food they need. they need. feed themselves or their families. Many of these people also rely on benefits, and the UK government is known to impose sanctions and punish people who rely on benefits by paying them later, or not at all. Getting these people to rely on food banks to help them eat. As mentioned in the text, the reason so many churches choose to take on the role of the state and help is that many Christians identify with the idea of ​​sharing bread, of loving their neighbor and take care of others. So it makes perfect sense that Church members have come together to help those who are hungry and need more food. 90% of food banks are run by churches.Although it has been argued that the government believes that more people are using more food banks as more food banks open branches across the country. This statement is false, because the growing number of food banks is mainly due to the fact that more and more people need food, because of delays in social assistance payments or sanctions and because they do not earn not enough salaries to cover all their basic expenses. The role of government should be to create fairer wages, so that working people are not forced to rely on food banks. And because Christian churches recognize this in times of need, they are opening more and more food banks so that no one goes hungry. Additionally, they not only offer them food, but also a place where people can open up and share their stories with others going through similar situations. The Church has therefore managed to achieve a lot by filling the gaps in the system and within society, where the government's efforts have failed and it has not been able to help and support all citizens who desperately need food and have no other options. The Church has proven that it takes responsibility for the government and this shows that it has done an even better job than the government, which is failing its people and without food. Many churches also had a lot to say about the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but unfortunately they did not achieve their goals of preventing Tony Blair from going to war and therefore failed to pursue and introduce their ideologies in the political domain. The Church of England disagreed with the US-led war on Iraq because it did not go hand in hand with the teachings of the Bible; where it is mentioned that if someone harms you, you should not retaliate, unlike the Old Testament where it is stated that you should retaliate. The proof is in Matthew 5:38-40, where Jesus teaches us how to fight back: “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, don't fight someone who wants to hurt you. If they hit you on the right cheek, let them hit the other cheek as well. If someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let them slap you on the other cheek too. If someone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let them have your coat too. This implies that the Church believed that instead of fighting against the atrocities and destruction visited upon us after 9/11 by Al-Qaeda; rather we should step back and be the bigger person by not fighting back and turning the other cheek if they hit us. And because Tony Blair was a devout Christian, the Church of England believed that this might have some influence on his choice to go to war. But they actually did not achieve the desired end goal, but I will explain why they could have succeeded in representing themselves as a reliable source on political matters; which could help them in the future, as there has been a lot of media discussion on this topic since then. It is quite contradictory that the reason Tony Blair said he went to war was a reason God had apparently inspired him that it was the right thing to do; even though the Church of England said it had warned against rapprochement with the United States and a war in Iraq; because they were afraid of the implications and consequences it would have on both parties. If the Church couldto achieve something in this affair is that it succeeded in proving to the world that it was an institution which would have been right to do so. political issues such as not waging war. The proof is when we look at the aftermath of the Iraq War and the suffering that has continued since: such as the terrorist attacks in the UK and the rest of the world. Therefore, even though the Church failed to achieve its goals in preventing Blair from going to war, they still managed to achieve one thing. That is to say being a reliable, trustworthy and honest source regarding certain political issues regarding war with other countries, and that Tony Blair and the UK would have been better off if he had listened to the Church of England, instead of his own advice. The Barmen Declaration was a declaration that defended religious freedom based on Protestant doctrine. It was not completely rebellious, as there was no recourse to violence. But they inspired the Church to promote and defend social justice. It was written in 1934 by the German group Confessing and its biggest influencer was Swiss theologian Karl Barth. The Group was primarily concerned with the merger of state and church. She was addressing the state and the "Deutsche Kirche", which allowed Hitler to create a common state and church (in some cases), because he did not have control over all the churches, but he also completely closed many of them. as we see with the Jewish and Catholic churches. Barmen's statement did not have a clear and direct outcome at the time of its publication nor was it ever intended to completely destroy the Nazi regime, but it still helped to shed light on the fact that Hitler was an evil persecutor, someone who saw himself above God and did not have the best interests of the Church at heart. He only considered taking control of Germany and then conquering the world part of his regime. The confessing group considered the Church a holy place and did not believe that Hitler defended the rules, laws and testaments upheld by their German evangelical church. The "German Christian" movement was heavily influenced by Luther, who was also known for misusing Romans 13, so that people would respect authority at all times. Luther also permitted anti-Semitism and modulated parts of the Old and New Testaments that he considered “too Jewish.” From this we can discern that he had a major influence on the merger of the Protestant Church with Hitler's ideology into a Reich Church. In return, Hitler had helped German Christians win new elections for the synod of the new National Evangelical Church. This new church even went so far as to incorporate an "Aryan paragraph", which did not want anyone else to be part of their church and the Confessing Church soon realized that this could not be right , because everyone is welcome in the house of God. wanted to take back the Church and this shows that the Church's opinion on political matters is very important. Otherwise, Hitler would not have wanted to collaborate with the Church. Although he had no personal interest in its origins, he knew that for many traditional peoples the Church played a vital role in their lives and that the only way to reach these people and make them believe that his regime was the right one was to join them. forces with the Church and working towards its own end goal. He only had his own personal malicious plan and all he wanted to do was implement his twisted ideology at a time when people in Germanywere in great pain and had no one else to look up to who passionately promised them as much as he did. We therefore understand why Barmen's declaration, alone, was not enough to prevent Hitler from gaining power and ruling the country. This is because of the times in which it was written, the country was in turmoil, desperate for anything or anyone that could save it from its despair and Hitler represented and symbolized this for the majority of people. people at that time, who had no There was therefore no other feeling of hope left. Therefore, he was not able to achieve as great an achievement as he had probably initially hoped, but what he did do was he was able to make sure and d 'pay close attention to what the Nazi state could and could not do. He took over Germany's Protestant churches completely, so he never had control of all the holy places. Barmen's statement is proven by reference to the Bible. Jesus says He is the only way to God/Heaven and there is no other way to enter. Hitler calling himself the “Führer” puts himself in Jesus’ place. The Confessing Church realized that Jesus is the only truth and the only way, and she did not want to include someone like Hitler in her daily life, because she clearly warns about this in the Holy Scriptures, that we must not obey or fool any other. no one to such an extent except Jesus. The proof is where it is said: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. » (John14.6). “Very truly, I say to you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber…I am the gate; if anyone enters through me, he will. be saved." (John 10:1, 9.) We can view the achievements of Barmen's declaration differently if we examine its effects, even after his time. As we can still recognize from the contemporary relevance it has had in Indonesia regarding the Batak Christian Protestant Church (HKBP) It has been incorporated into their church since 1951 and since then it has helped them resolve issues regarding Muslims and their Sharia law incorporated into Indonesian national law and with the Pancasila. and the declaration deeply inspired them. The Kairos document was written in 1985. and it was the most important of its time. It demanded that the state abandon the idea of ​​justifying its actions by abusing Christian theology and. manipulating her in order to rationalize and excuse her horrible and inexplicable actions He also demanded that the Church side with the oppressed and not the oppressor, because God always sides equally with those who are oppressed and exploited. It was divided into three parts. In the Kairos document we can see how state theology plays a huge role, how it uses the status quo to excuse itself for its systematic and brutal racism and forces the other side to engage, otherwise it can do facing the consequences of being tortured or killed. This proves this with the aid and misuse of Romans 13, as we also saw in Barmen's statement. He uses law and order to enforce his doctrines and labels anyone who does not obey a communist, never questioning the actions of the state. This is behind justifying and following God, but in reality it is not. Second, the Church's theology did not directly endorse apartheid, but it was insincere and quite biased. He didn't want justice, he just wanted reconciliation. She also failed to properly investigate the events unfolding at the time and stuck to the same views.