Monday, October 10, 2011

Whose world is it anyway?

Scriptures for Sunday, October 9th

Psalm 99
Matthew 22:15-22

Sermon


           Some of you probably grew up reading out of the King James version of the Bible.  To the best of my knowledge, I never did.  Nor, in fact, am I particularly enamored with the translation as its been found to be replete with errors and the Shakespearean language obscures more than it imparts, but there are passages of scripture for which the King James translation remains most prominent for me.  Psalm 23 and the Lord’s prayer are two instances; today’s scripture is a third.  In its translation, Jesus replies to the Herodians question by declaring “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”
This is a passage that has been quoted over and over again “as a solemn statement about the relationship between civil and religious authority, between politics and religion, or, in Christian terms, between “church and state.”  It has been most commonly understood to mean that there are two separate realms of human life, one religious and one political.  In the first, we are to “render to God,” and in the second, we are to render to Caesar.”  from the The Last Week
What this means in practice has varied considerably, but generally it has been used to tell Christians that we are to submit to the will of the state.  Perhaps the most famous formulation of this is by Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism.  In a sermon on this passage, Luther declared 

And with these words he also confirms the worldly sword or government. They had hoped he would condemn it and speak against it; he does not do it, however, but praises earthly government and commands to render unto it what is due to it. It is therefore his desire that there should be magistrates, princes and masters, whom we are to obey, be they what they may and what they list; neither should we ask whether they possess and exercise government and authority justly or unjustly. We should only pay heed to that power and authority which is good, for it is ordered and instituted by God...Thus one must also bear the authority of the ruler. If he abuses it, I am not therefore to bear him a grudge, nor take revenge of and punish him with my hands. One must obey him solely for God's sake, for he stands in God's stead. Let them impose taxes as intolerable as they may: one must obey them and, suffer everything patiently, for God's sake. Whether they do right or not, that will be taken care of in due time. If therefore your possessions, aye, your life and whatsoever you have, be taken from you by those in power, then you are to say: I give it to you willingly, I acknowledge you as my masters, gladly will I be obedient to you. Whether you use the power given to you by God well or ill, that is your affair.
This notion that there are two kingdoms, one Godly and one worldly, caught on during the enlightenment and has become very firmly entrenched in our ethos.  In fact, a representation of this became part of the first amendment to the US constitution and the notion of the separation of church and state is quite prominently featured in the writings of Thomas Jefferson.  So, the idea of interpreting this passage as laying down the boundaries between the spiritual and the secular life has considerable weight in both our religious and worldly traditions.
I believe strongly in paying attention to tradition in the church.  We owe a great debt of gratitude for the ways that Christians before us, including the great thinkers like Aquinas, Luther and Wesley, have understood the faith.  Though there is never a single understanding of scripture or faith, many dominant themes can emerge that help us in our interpretation of scripture and the spiritual life.  However, we are also called to read scripture with a critical eye; to never be habitual in our understanding of a passage and to utilize the best of modern scholarship to understand just what Jesus or the author of a particular part of the bible was trying to say.  And so, with all deference to these great thinkers, I must admit that I think they got this passage wrong.
I am not alone in this conclusion- many modern biblical scholars have asked Christians to look at this passage with new eyes.  So I will ask you to do the same-  forget for a moment what you may have always heard about this passage (don’t worry, you will have plenty of historical company to argue against me if you still disagree by the end of the sermon), lets try to bring fresh eyes and ears to this scripture.
First, we have to look at the context here.  For the last few weeks, we have been studying texts from Matthew that show him in a theological and political battle with various authorities.  Whether it be the Pharisees, the scribes, the temple officials or the Herodians, many have tried to discredit Jesus through their intense questioning.  Thus, a sort of debate has been playing out in the center of the Jewish religious world-  the temple in Jerusalem.  Before and after this question about taxes, Jesus is quizzed about the nature of his authority and then about the nature of resurrection.  When asked ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” in Matthew 21:23, Jesus turns the authority question back on the askers and slips out of ever giving a straight answer.  When later asked about what happens in heaven if a woman has more than one husband during her life, Jesus dismisses the question as irrelevant born out of an incomplete understanding of eternal life.  Two questions-two answers meant not to illuminate, but to discredit the asker.
So, in between this, we have the Herodians asking this pesky question about taxes.  Let’s be clear, they put Jesus in a real tight spot.  

Considering that taxes were a means of Roman oppression and the inscription on the coin represented submission to Caesar, this is a dangerous question for Jesus. For the Israelites suffering under Roman imperialism, to answer in the affirmative would imply that Roman colonization is an appropriate form of governance and that God’s people should accept whatever form of government, no matter how repressive, they find themselves under... If Jesus had answered the question negatively he would have been openly calling for revolt against the ability of Rome to tax its people.   
(Resolution 5012 from 2008 UMC Book of Resolutions)

He likely would have been immediately executed.
So, in the midst of this dilemma, and given the context, why would we assume that Jesus is giving a straight answer to their question?  Why would we assume that Jesus is affirming the authority of Rome?  Could this not be another answer meant to discredit the questioner?

When they first ask the question, Jesus responds first by asking them to “Show me the coin used for the tax.”  The Herodians proceed to give him a denarius.  Believe it or not-  they have now fallen into a trap.  You see, there 

IS a specific coin that is required to be used to pay the Roman tax. It is a Roman coin. And on that coin is the image of the Roman Emperor. Such coins have been found by archaeologists, and printed on the coin would be the title, "Tiberius, Emperor, son of God." Thus the coin violates the commandments to have no other Gods except the Lord, and the commandment to not make any images of God. Possessing such a coin was extremely problematic for faithful, observant Jews because not having it meant running afoul of the Romans, and having it was a violation of core Torah law.  Jesus traps his adversaries by asking for the coin used to pay taxes. When one of them produces it - likely one the Herodians - it demonstrates their hypocrisy. How could an observant Jew - and a leader at that - have such a coin on their person?
In other words, by producing the coin, the Herodians have already been convicted-  they just don’t know it yet. So Jesus essentially flips the coin back and says if its really Caesar's, give it to him.  
So here is the question below the surface-  what doesn’t belong to God?  Is there anything on earth that belongs to Caesar?  Caesar may have the military might, but does the land belong to Caesar?  If Caesar is the most powerful emperor in the world, does that mean the world belongs to Caesar?  
No! a faithful Jew would cry out-  this is God’s world.  God is the creator, the sustainer, the redeemer of this universe.  How dare anyone claim that something, anything, belongs to anyone but God?
Alright, let me anticipate a question here.  If everything belongs to God, and nothing to Caesar, then their should be no separation of church and state?  Or, if you are really clever, you might say, wait, if money belongs to God and not to the state, that means I don’t have to pay my taxes, right?  Trust me, attaching this sermon to your 1040 is not going to absolve you.  I do promise to visit you in jail though.
No, I do think we can still testify to the importance of the role of civil governance.  The government has a critical role to promote the common good in society.  The church is not equipped to manage and run a program like Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, but it is undeniable that these programs have helped to fulfill our Christian values of caring for the poor and the elderly.  Our public schools educate a far wider number of children then we ever taught when only the church provided for a child’s education.  While the church is a means of grace and should be a beacon of justice, Wayne Grudem has also argued that, “Human government is also a result of common grace. . . . One of the primary means God uses to restrain evil in the world is human government.”  (Resolution 5012 from 2008 UMC Book of Resolutions)
So, what then, does that mean to us?  How do we live out this tension? 
First, we have to acknowledge that there is no topic that is outside the realm of our faith.  That was one of the most prominent comments in our social issue forums-  “I never thought how this could be related to my faith.”  But, if we are going to claim that everything is God’s, this includes things like environmental issues, health care, sexuality, and education.
Secondly, we must inform ourselves on the issues and pray about how it relates to our faith.  If we are going to try to exercise our vote, our money and our time in a faithful way, we need to spend time in prayer and discussion about what a particular issue means in our larger scope of faith.  What does scripture call for in a circumstance?  Or, if there is no direct answer or if the scriptures conflict, what are the higher purposes that God is drawing us to?
Thirdly, we must learn to articulate a topic from both a faith and a secular perspective.  Let me give you an example-  I disagree with the death penalty.  I would lay down my objection based on the fact that God is the author of all life, and that all lives can be redeemed by God’s grace.  Therefore, it is wrong to institutionalize the practice of taking a life that is not ours to take.  But, if I were to argue this with a person who has a different understanding of God, then we would talk past each other.  My faith claims are exactly that-  an act of faith and thus not provable.  So while my faith has guided me in my decision to oppose the death penalty, I also arm myself with knowledge that it does not deter crime, that it is terribly inefficient use of our time and money and that it is applied disproportionately to the poor.  None of these statements require a faith perspective to affirm.
But, this is complex, how do we choose?  Many of us will do all these things faithfully, and still disagree.  And, we might make a decision, and it could turn out to be the wrong one.  For this, I’d like to tell you a story.
The medieval philosopher Buridan had a donkey who, like its master was also a philosopher.  One day, rather than offering the donkey his morning bale of hay, Buridan offered the donkey two equal bales of hay.  The donkey spent the entire day trying to decide which bale of hay to eat.  But the donkey could not decide which bale of hay was the better one.  Day after day, the donkey could not decide- until the donkey, still undecided, starved to death.
We must take the risk of making a choice, even though it might be the wrong choice.  It might be a choice that people get upset with, it might be a choice that fellow faithful people disagree on. We have to make these choices because peoples lives do indeed depend upon them. We are called to engage all our hearts, and all our minds, and all our souls, in this world- because it is Gods.  Let us act like it is so.

No comments:

Post a Comment