<doc.id=1520.b2>
<title> POLITICAL INFLUENCE IS NECESSARY IN THE SWEDISH CHURCH </title>
Trônet thinks that politicians ought to lose their power in the vestries, because otherwise they will use religion for their own purposes. He thinks that politicians have nothing to do in church, because God founded the church and his words must rule there. It is God's church and not the people's. The church can never obey the same democratic rules as the rest of society. With this he says that we are not free to arrange the church as we like, there is already an ancient, fixed role for the church. People would thereby be powerless when it comes to changing something in the church. I think that is wrong - the church can, and should, change. 
Trônet expresses fear that the politician-led church will turn into a means of manipulating people. Politicians will also secularise the church even more. The problem with his reasoning is the fact that present-day Sweden already is secularised. How are politicians going to use the church to manipulate, when no one cares about the church? Religion is no longer powerful enough to be a means of manipulation in Sweden. Trônet asserts that politicians have weakened the church, but he does not ask why or how it could happen. Secularisation was inevitable when political awareness grew, because people realised how suppressive the old church was. Trônet refuses to see this. He thinks that if only politics had left church alone, Sweden would not be as secularised as it is today. I think secularisation is inevitable, due to the conservative views that the church still has. That would certainly not change if politicians lost their power in the vestries.
Trônet may be reluctant to allow any political influence in the church, but he proves to be even more conservative when he claims that the church was founded by God. Leaving the question of God's existence unanswered; there are still illogical lapses in Trônet's reasoning. He argues that "it is God's will that must be valid in church, not ours [people's]". The interpretation of the Bible is obviously a difficult task, as we have learnt from the various interpretations so far. Some people have even interpreted some parts as an excuse for murdering. I argue that the church is not God's church - and should not be. It was built by people, the Bible was written by people - even if God told them what to write and how to build. People have interpreted, changed, and added their own opinions and views to what might have been God's words from the beginning. Therefore, when Trônet reads the Bible, he reads words written by people, whose motives he does not know. God's words are simply not reliable enough to follow. Therefore, elected politicians must have influence over how the church is led.
Trônet argues that the Bible and the church should not have to undergo the same kind of political scrutiny, democratisation and modernisation as the rest of society. It is sacred. Trônet refers in his article to the democratic society as "the foreign ideology" and "the worldly power in the disguise of democratic party establishment". Against "the foreign ideology" he puts "ordinary Christian faith and church order", which we then must suppose is undemocratic. It may not be that he wants the message of the church to be undemocratic, as it would be against Jesus' words to deny anyone salvation. But he obviously wants the leadership of the church to be hierarchical, traditional, and undemocratic. I think that anyone who prefers an undemocratic order to a democratic one should be doubted and questioned. 
Trônet argues that the church should be an institution free from political power. To him, politically elected vestries are a threat to the Christian doctrine. He does not realise that the church has always been the battleground for ideological fights, and that the church also has been political. People have used the church to get worldly power in all times. The church would not be free from dogma or manipulation just because the politicians were done away with. The difference is just that now, they are elected. He argues that democracy is wrong for the church, but fails to see that there is no such thing as "ordinary Christian faith and order". The order and the role of the church can change, if people want it to change. God did not set up the rules. Trônet also blames politicians for the secularisation of Sweden. He does not admit that political awareness made people question the dogma of the church, and that is why people turn away from religion. To complain about secularisation and reject people's influence over the church shows that he is both illogical and conservative.

Summary of the article
The article that I am going to argue against has the title "It is a sin that politicians have replaced God in the Swedish church". The author is Sverker Trônet, a priest from Nynäshamn and chairman of the "Organisation for Christian unity".
The state and the church have recently been separated in Sweden. There is, however, still locally elected vestries (kyrkofullmäktige) in every parish. The vestry makes decisions and employs priests. Everyone over 18 has the right to vote in church elections, which are held separately from general elections.
Trônet argues that now that the church is separated from the state, there is no reason to have politicians making decisions about the church. The state has always suppressed the church, and rearranged Christianity to suit political aims. The Christian doctrine must be practised, and politicians cannot do that. Instead, they have changed the original Christian faith, and created a "people's church", governed by democratic laws. Trônet wants to return to the Episcopal order that the Swedish church had before 1982. Episcopal order means that the bishops and the chapter (domkapitlet) lead the church and employ the priests.
 Tronêt also argues that democracy is fine in the rest of society, but not in the church. Other laws must prevail there - "ordinary Christian faith and order". In other words: God's law, interpreted by bishops and priests. Otherwise, the Christian heritage will continue to dissolve, he argues.
</doc>