I carry a burden which I would challenge my sisters and brothers in the space and experience of Church to consider with me. We see what has been happening in a world gone mad from conservative thinking which has used religion as a bedrock for right wing politics. We see the increasing pain and confusion from the unbridled drama within the arenas of various political leaders across the globe.

It is for a time such as this that in contexts where the Church has a loud voice it ought to seek intentionally to be a source of healing and strength in the midst of division and confusion.

Some hold the view that human rights are antithetical to the Bible. Others hold the view that human rights came from the Bible. How might we in a plural society, though, act for the good of all regardless of views?

Looking at the Church’s role in any democracy is an interesting exercise, given the its history of being inclined more to a preoccupation with being dogmatic, theocratic, autocratic, and if we are not careful, even tyrannical in an effort to present a bias that has been accorded divine status.

Then there is the matter of religious extremism which also obtains in various expressions of the Church. Let us not forget that the church has been alive and well in places where racism, slavery, apartheid, and various crimes against humanity have also been alive and well.

Pre-modern political thinkers were enthused with the notion of “the good” and what characterised this “good”. They also tasked themselves with the challenge to identify those whom they considered were in possession of the capacity for this good, the objective being to get these individuals into positions of power and influence as they sought to create change.

Then came the problem of the realisation that there may be competing ideas about “the good”. It is not a secret that, certainly in terms of Prostestantism and Catholicism, the definition of good was determined by the side on which you stood.

Can you imagine? Pre-modern thinkers such as Plato, St Augustine, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, and Luther did not always agree on what was the good. Imagine, Aquinas thought it was okay to have stubborn heretics put to death. John Calvin was comfortable with the execution of dissidents.

Without going into too much history, I am sure we see that a number of our pre-modern political thinkers were not tolerant at all with regards to a plural society. The idea of toleration, which informs the notion of tolerance we speak of today, is informed by democratic political theory which invites thinking in the interest of a plural society.

If the Church is to be a credible voice in national development it will, of necessity, have to be a critical voice that is informed by critical thinking which seeks not to promote one’s bias regarding “the good”, important though that bias may be.

The area of political thinking, which is to serve the interests of a plural society, should never be preoccupied with questions of the ultimate: Does God exist? What happens after death? Which day is Sabbath? Where does evil come from?

To put this another way, the critical voice of the Church in national development must of necessity be focused instead on how we may facilitate a respectful and protected space for all members of the society in so far as they do not breach the rights of others in terms of liberty and justice.

Creating change is an act of necessity in every age. However, necessary change is often affected by the pace and dictates of dominant voices. May we steer clear of prejudice and stereotyping, popular though might be with normative positions and political bias.

Maybe if it originated with religious dicta, justice for one and justice for all in our quest for equal rights and justice would not be so difficult after all.

Fr Sean Major-Campbell is an Anglican priest and human rights advocate. Send comments to the Observer or seanmajorcampbell@yahoo.com.