Church is a politics

Matthew 23:15-22

15 Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said. 16 So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one, for you do not regard people with partiality. 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. 20 Then he said to them, “Whose head is this and whose title?” 21 They answered, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” 22 When they heard this, they were amazed, and they left him and went away.

The Pharisees wanted to “entrap” Jesus, though they sent their disciples rather than putting themselves in the fray.  These disciples, along with the Roman-sympathizing Herodians, first flatter Jesus, then pose the question, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” It’s a clever question, because answering it will seem to get Jesus into trouble one way or another.  If he says, yes, it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, then he clearly sets himself against the Empire - something the Pharisees will no doubt bring to the authorities.  But saying, No, it’s unlawful also gets him into trouble, for less obvious reasons.   

The tax had to be paid using Roman coinage, and these coins - as Jesus drew attention to - not only bear the image of Caesar but also his self-given title which declared his divinity.  The Jews considered this a blasphemous claim, and some thus rejected the use of these coins altogether.  To pay the tax was to be complicit in the blasphemy.  If Jesus answer that, no, it is not lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, then would be seen as a friend of the Romans and discredit himself as a prophet.  

Jesus sees right through their trap - he’s “aware of their malice” - and not only calls them hypocrites but exposes their hypocrisy.  He asks them to show him a coin, which they do, thus revealing them to be possessors of the coin and guilty of the very offense of which they try to accuse him.  He forces them to acknowledge the image and title of of Caesar which the coin bears, then he delivers the famous answer: “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

For most of history, at least in Christendom, Jesus’ answer has been taken to mean that there are essentially two different realms in view - one heavenly, invisible, spiritual realm where God reigns and is owed things like our praise and devotion, and one earthly, material realm where God delegates authority to Caesar.   The difference between what God and Caesar are owed is apples and oranges, so there’s no conflict.  

The “traditional” Christian view of government is largely based on two passages from Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.  These passages clearly assert that God desires human government and that we should obey them, but it’s unclear if it should be taken to mean that God endorses government in principle or if God appoints specific authorities to rule.  Although the language of the text actually suggests the latter reading, I have to say that the idea that every human government has been God’s chosen agent and they have all be worthy of obedience strains credulity.  If so, it would seem many of these governments were appointed not for our flourishing but for our chastisement.  (I’ll let you decide if you think Trump is here to save us from our sin or is evidence that God has given us over to our sin.) 

It’s worth noting that just about the entire history of Christian thinking about government in general and such passages in particular has taken place within a context where Christians held political power - where Caesar had become a Christian - where church and state were not only aligned, but were often indistinguishable.  And in such a context the church naturally wanted to assert the legitimacy of government - in no small part because those governments could compel obedience to the church. 

To make a long story short, it was precisely this coercive alignment between church and state which eventually created the desire for separation between the two, and this in turn produced the kind of secular democracies we now live in where we believe in the state but the church seems irrelevant.  The state rules over public life and religion - if you choose - is a strictly private matter.  And although many vestiges of christendom remain, this project is more or less complete.  

The Christian nationalists, in both their Protestant and Catholic flavors, believe this was all a catastrophic error, that church and state should be reunited.  They operate on the assumption that God not only wants Christians to rule but that they are therefore permitted and even required to gain political power - even by any means necessary.  Setting aside the question of whether or not this would lead to good government, it should be obvious that seizing political power and using the coercive authority of the state is exactly the kind of thing that Jesus rejected.  

Most of us are content with secular liberalism where the state leaves the church alone.  We might lament the direction society is moving or the diminished prestige and influence of the church, but we’re basically content to freely assemble, to express and practice our faith as we wish, to give to God what belongs to God. 

But what actually does belong to Caesar?  

Jesus answered the Pharisees’ question in such a way that they presume the implied answer, and we do the same.  You can interpret Jesus as drawing a distinction which allows the pagan empire and the people of God to peaceably coexist.  You can be a faithful Jew and a loyal subject of Rome.   You can be a faithful Christian and loyal citizen of a secular democracy.  

I suspect, however, that Jesus’ more candid answer to this question would be that finally nothing belongs to Caesar.   In the Gospel of John, when Jesus appeared before Pilate, he said to him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above;”  We can squabble about what it means for God to “give” power, but in any case it’s clear that such power does not properly belong to Caesar, as if, having given the power, God cannot take it back.  Before the Pharisees Jesus never says you should pay the tax; it just says you should give to Caesar what belongs to him and lets them draw their own conclusion.  

And this ambiguity, this ambivalence actually captures the proper Christian attitude toward government.  If there is going to be life on earth, then it is good for there to be government, and for these governments to promote peace and justice for their citizens.  And Christians should take an active interest in the government doing well the kinds of things a government ought to do.   We can feel pretty good, living in a place like Luxembourg, paying our taxes and obeying the laws because we see all the ways the common welfare if provided for - and because, however dissatisfied we are, we can remind ourselves that it could be much worse.  We should be thankful that we get live here.

But however good life here is, Luxembourg is not the kingdom of God.  Finally we await a day when nothing is owed to Caesar because Caesars are no more.  Jesus manages to avoid saying anything incriminating when confronted by the Pharisees, but there is no doubt that they - and the Romans too - were right to see him as a subversive force, as one who claimed authority, a would be kind of kingdom which was coming and now is.  The Pharisees wanted Jesus dead not so much because he was a blasphemer but rather because he undermined their authority.  And the Romans were happy to go along since he threatened to sow political disorder.  The rationale for killing Jesus is essentially political.  

To be followers of Christ is to await this coming kingdom, to live as citizens of that kingdom in this world, like expats from heaven living in this foreign land.  This is where our allegiance lies.  And while we should always good neighbors, depending on when and where we find ourselves, we shouldn’t necessarily always be “good” citizens.  

The danger Caesar presents, with his claims to divine status, is that we might hope in him for salvation, and indeed there are many people today for whom politics is essentially religion, for whom every election threatens the apocalypse.  We shouldn’t pretend that elections don’t make a material difference in people’s lives, but ultimately our hope is in something greater than the government. 

I had a professor who often said that the church doesn’t have a politics - the church is a politics.  Which is to say that the church doesn’t exist merely to be a positive influence in the world, and definitely not to take control of the levers of power.  Rather the church’s task is not to make the world the way it ought to be, but to be faithful to Jesus, to be an incarnation, the Body of Christ, which demonstrates to whom true power and authority finally belong.  It is to be a people who, while conceding that government might (nor might not!) have legitimate authority delegated to it, finally everything belong to God.