The Church has been very vocal on many issues concerning politics, but has not always been able to make its case as efficiently. But at other times they managed to achieve a lot regarding political issues. It all depends on the definition of outcome. And the definition of fulfillment can be understood rather vaguely with respect to the Church; this is because most of the time they do not direct power to bring about an immediate change within politics, but often what they have been able to achieve is to shed light on the wrong actions of the government and make people notice the things that they would have could otherwise it would have been swept under the carpet. We can discern this from the impact the Church has had on people around the world due to media interest, initiating important discussions and debates and essentially because they have the power and influence to make people think differently and look at things in a different light. Christians should want to serve the greater good, meaning they should 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 several examples where the Church has been able to achieve something in politics, even if only to a certain extent. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The Church has succeeded in raising concerns and campaigning against the excessive and ever-increasing reliance on food banks, which have become an acceptable means of survival in the UK world, even though they were initially set up only as a temporary means for people who had difficulty feeding themselves and their families. Even for people working in an economically developed country like Britain, it has become somewhat the norm to get food from food banks. The Church is playing an important role, questioning governments, people's dependency 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 dramatically, as we can learn from the graphs below: The reason why so many people rely on food banks has not nothing to do with laziness or because they are lazy people who don't want to work. In most cases it is because these people who actually go to work, are paid very low wages (as seen in the graph on the next page), and do not even have enough money to buy the necessary food they need to survive. feed yourself or your family. Many of these people also rely on benefits of some kind, and the UK government is known for implementing sanctions and punishing people who rely on benefits with delayed payments or no payments at all. Making these people rely on food banks to help them eat. As mentioned in the text, the reason why so many churches choose to take on the role of state and help is because many Christians identify with the idea of ​​sharing bread, loving others and caring for others. So it makes perfect sense why people in the Church 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 always believes thatmore people use more food banks, because more and more food banks are opening stations across the country. This statement is not true, because the growing number of food banks is essentially due to the fact that more and more people need food, due to delays in payments or welfare punishments and because they do not earn enough wages to cover all the costs of basic. It should be the government's job to create fairer wages, so that working people don't have to rely on food banks. And because Christian churches recognize this need, they open more and more food banks, so no one has to go hungry. Plus, they not only offer food, but also a place where people can open up and share their stories with others in similar situations. Therefore, the church has managed to achieve a lot, filling the gaps in the system and within society, where the government's efforts have failed and where it has not been able to help and support all the people who are in desperate need of food and they have no other options. The Church has demonstrated that it takes responsibility for the government and proves that it has done an even better job than the government has done, which fails its people and without food. Many churches also had a lot to say about it. of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but unfortunately they did not achieve their objectives of preventing Tony Blair from going to war and therefore failed to pursue and introduce their ideologies into the realm of politics. The Church of England did not agree with the US-led war against Iraq because it did not go hand in hand with the teachings of the Bible; where it says that if someone hurts you you should not react, contrary to the Old Testament where it states that you should react. Evidence of this would be found in Matthew 5:38-40 where Jesus teaches us how to react: 'You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you: don't react against someone who wants to hurt you. If they hit you on the right cheek, let them hit the other cheek too. If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt off, let them hit you on the other cheek too. If someone wants to sue you in court and take away your shirt, let them have your coat too.' This implies that the Church believed that instead of combating the atrocities and destruction that were inflicted on us after 9/11 by Al Qaeda; we should instead back off and be the bigger person, not react and turn the other cheek if they hit us. And since Tony Blair was an avid Christian, the Church of England thought it might have had some influence on his choice to go to war. But they actually did not achieve the desired end goal, but I will discuss why they might have succeeded in representing themselves as a reliable source in political matters; which could help them in the future, as there has been a lot of discussion in the media on this topic since then. It is quite contradictory that the reason Tony Blair said he went to war was that God had apparently inspired him to be the right thing to do; even though the Church of England had claimed to have warned him to join forces with the United States and declare war on Iraq; because they were afraid of the implications and consequences this would have on both sides. If the Church managed to achieve anything in this case, it was to be able to demonstrate to the world as an institution that would be right on political issues such as not to go to war. Evidence of this is when we look at the aftermath of the Iraq War and the suffering that has continued since then: such as the terrorist attacks that hit the UK and the rest ofworld. So even though the Church didn't achieve anything by stopping Blair from going to war, they still managed to achieve one thing. Which means being a reliable, trustworthy and honest source regarding some political issues regarding war with other countries, and that Tony Blair and the UK would have been better off if they had listened to the Church of England, instead of their own advice.The Barmen Declaration was a declaration that defended religious freedom based on Protestant doctrine. He was not completely rebellious, as there was no use of violence. But they pushed the Church to promote and defend social justice. It was written in 1934 by the Confessing Group of Germany and its greatest influence was the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. The Group was above all concerned about the fusion of Church and State. It was addressed to the State and the "Deutsche Kirche", which allowed Hitler to create a common State and Church (in some cases), since he did not have control over all churches, but also had many of them completely closed, as has been seen with the Jewish and Catholic churches. The Barmen Declaration had no clear and direct result at the time of its publication and was never intended to completely destroy the Nazi regime, but it still managed to help shed light on the fact that Hitler was an evil persecutor, someone who saw himself above God and did not have the interest of the Church at heart. He just saw it as part of his regime to take command and have control over Germany first and then take over the world. The Confessing Group saw the Church as a holy place and did not believe that Hitler upheld any of 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 overusing Romans 13, so that people respected authority at all times. Luther also permitted anti-Semitism and edited some parts of the Old and New Testaments that he considered "too Jewish." From this we can discern that he had a great influence on the fusion of the Protestant church with Hitler's ideology into a Reich church. In exchange, Hitler had helped German Christians win new elections towards the synod of the new national evangelical Church. This new church even went so far as to incorporate an "Aryan paragraph", who did not want anyone else to be part of their church and the Confessing Church quickly realized that this could not be right, because all are welcome in the house of God. Hitler he wanted to take over the church and this shows that the church's opinion on political issues is quite important. Otherwise Hitler would not have wanted to collaborate with the Church. Even though he had no personal interest in his background, he knew that for many traditionalist people the church played a vital role in their lives and the only way to reach these people and make them believe that his regime was the right one, was to join to him. forces with the church and working towards one's end goal. He only had his own personal mischievous plan and all he wanted to do was carry out his twisted ideology in a time when people in Germany were suffering a lot and had no one else to look up to who promised them as passionately as he did. It is therefore understandable why the Barmen Declaration alone was not enough to prevent Hitler from coming to power and ruling the country. This is because at the time it was written, the country was in turmoil, desperate for something or someone who could save them from their despair and Hitler represented himself and symbolized that to most people at that time, who had no one remainedanother sense of hope. Therefore, he was not able to achieve as great an achievement as he had probably initially hoped, but what he did was able to make sure and take great care that the Nazi state could and did not. completely take control of the Protestant churches in Germany, so he never had control over all the holy sites. The Barmen statement is proven by reference to the Bible. Jesus says that he is the only way to God/heaven and that there is no other way into it. Hitler who calls himself “Führer” puts himself in the position of Jesus. The confessing Church has realized that Jesus is the only truth and way, and did not want to include someone like Hitler in its daily life, because in the Holy Scripture it clearly warns not to obey or idolize anyone else. person to such a point, except Jesus. The proof of this is where it is stated: "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me." (John14.6). "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but enters by another way, he is a thief and a robber... I am the door; if anyone enters through me, let him be saved." (John 10:1, 9.) We can look at the results of the Barmen statement in another way if we consider its effects which it had even after its time. As we can still recognize from its contemporary relevance it had in Indonesia, regarding the Batak Christian Protestant Church (HKBP). It has been incorporated into their church since 1951 and has since helped them address issues regarding Muslims and their Sharia incorporated into Indonesian national law and with the Pancasila and Declaration inspired them deeply. The Kairos document was written in 1985 and was the most important of its time. It required the State to abandon the idea of ​​justifying its actions by abusing Christian theology and manipulating it in order to rationalize and excuse its horrific and inexplicable actions. He also asked the Church to side with the oppressed and not with the oppressors, because God also always sides with the 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 apologize for its brutal systematic racism and forces the other side to engage otherwise they can face the consequences of being tortured or killed. He demonstrates this with the help and misuse of Romans 13, as we also saw in the Barmen statement. He uses law and order to enforce his doctrines and labels anyone who does not obey a communist, without even doubting the actions of the state. It hides behind justification and following God, but in reality it is not like that. Second, the Church's theology did not directly endorse apartheid, but was insincere and rather biased. He didn't want justice, he just wanted reconciliation. He also failed to adequately investigate what events were happening at the time, and instead stuck to the same traditional views, which were not appropriate for his time, such as non-violence that changed nothing for anyone. Prophetic theology wants to invite action and return to the true meaning of the Bible, it wants to be current, to understand and observe the current time and state of things. He wants us to be realistic about the fact that we must first confront evil before we can get rid of it completely. It teaches us not to lose faith and to always have hope and think about what Jesus would do if he were in our position. Examines and uses examples of oppression in the Bible, as we can see in the case of the Jews and the Egyptians, and how God gave them freedom and how He will do the same in the South.