How to mix religion and politics
A sermon by Prof. Jonathan Boston for St Michael’s Anglican Church,
25 October 2020
Readings: Psalm 72; Matthew 22:15–22; Romans 13:1–7
Matthew 22: Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Introduction
It is a good time to think about governments and politics. Here in Aotearoa we have just had a general election. Americans are voting as I speak. Both locally and globally, there are many challenging and concerning issues — economic, social, environmental and technological, not to mention the current global pandemic. How, as Christians, should we think about these issues and the role of the state? What values and principles should guide our approach to public life, especially in a pluralist and multi-faith society like Aotearoa? How do the governments of this world relate to the Kingdom of God? Or to put it differently, what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar — or rather to Jacinda Ardern or Andy Foster? And how should we decide which people and parties to support — or indeed whether to vote at all?
Since the early days of the church, Christians have disagreed about many issues of politics, including the proper role of government and the responsibilities of citizenship. Church history is thus littered with intense and unresolved arguments, and radically different political theologies. Some Christians, for instance, argue for a complete separation of church and state, while others, at least since the days of the Roman Emperor Constantine, have supported the idea of a state-mandated church.
Likewise, whereas some Christians have argued that the realm of politics is too unethical, too dirty morally, for Christians to enter or navigate, others have regarded political activity as a legitimate, if not vital, means to express God’s love, compassion and justice, and thus bring the Kingdom of Heaven closer to Earth. In Aotearoa, Labour’s first Prime Minister, Michael Joseph Savage, for instance, described his government’s social policies as ‘applied Christianity’. Many other Christians, then and now, would beg to differ.
But we must not forget that our Lord prayed, and calls on us to pray: ‘Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven’. It is a prayer that God’s will be realised here and now, here on this planet, here in Aotearoa and Wellington, not simply in the distant future or in a far-off spiritual realm. But here and now.
I realise that sermons on politics are a potential minefield. Irrespective of what I say, or fail to say, I run the risk of censure. Yet there is no case for silence. As Christians we must wrestle prayerfully with the critical issues of governance: who should exercise power, on what basis, for what purposes, and within what limits. And arguably Christianity is inherently political: being faithful has political consequences.
Thankfully, the Scriptures contain a wealth of relevant material — think of all the stories with political themes in the Old Testament, such as Genesis, Exodus or Samuel, or the prophets like Isaiah, Amos or Daniel.
Importantly, we must not build our political theology on just a few verses, whether from Romans or Revelation, however important or instructive they may be. Rather, we must draw on the whole Biblical canvas — and the great themes of Creation, Disorder and Sin, the Incarnation, and Redemption — as well as the reflections of numerous thoughtful Christians over the centuries. Necessarily, what follows today is just a beginning.
Render to Caesar … and to God
The encounter in Matthew’s Gospel (and also Mark 12 and Luke 20) deals with the perennial issue of taxation. Benjamin Franklin once said: ‘in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes’. Government’s need money, but taxes are generally unwelcome: they were controversial 2000 years ago; they remain so today. Yet ‘taxes are what we pay for a civilised society’ — or so said Oliver Wendell Holmes, a former US Supreme Court Justice.
It is no surprise that Jesus was asked about taxes. His response, however, was utterly surprising. With one simple, short sentence Jesus left his questioners amazed.
The tax in question was a poll tax — that is, a tax of the same amount levied on every person, rather like the unpopular British poll tax introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
The poll tax in Jesus’ day was based on the census that Quirinius, the Roman Governor of Syria (which included Judea), conducted at the time of Jesus’ birth, around 6AD. The Jews regarded the tax as deeply unfair: it sparked a revolt led by Judas of Galilee; it had also inspired the Zealot party.
The questioning of Jesus about taxes was but one of many attempts by the Pharisees and others to trick Jesus into saying something that would provide a pretext for His arrest. On the issue of taxes, the Pharisees were joined by a group of Herodians — that is, supporters of Herod who ruled Judea at the pleasure of the Romans.
Jesus faces a Catch-22 situation: if He answers ‘yes: paying the poll tax to the Romans is ok’, He would be disloyal to the Jews. It would imply support for the Roman occupation and oppression.
But saying ‘no, it is wrong to pay the poll tax’, would render Him an enemy of the Romans; no doubt the Herodians could charge him with treason — which is more or less what they did anyway.
In response to his questioners, Jesus asks for a coin used for paying taxes. The coin shown to Jesus was a Roman Denarius or a tribute penny which was specifically minted for paying taxes. Such coins usually had an inscription on one side saying: ‘Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus’, with the reverse showing a seated female, usually identified as Livia — the wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius. But sometimes such coins had the head of the then Emperor Tiberius (AD14–37) on one side, with the head of Augustus, the first Roman Emperor (27BC-14AD) on the other. Some Jews thought the image of Tiberius was contrary to the second commandment’s ban on graven images. If Jesus said ‘yes’, therefore, He would violate the commandment.
Jesus was prepared. Whether he could read their minds, He certainly knew their intentions. He knew their goal was to trap Him and that His actual views on taxes were irrelevant. Masterfully, he avoids the trap: ‘give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God’. His questioners were amazed at this answer and walk away.
Why were they amazed and what did Jesus mean?
Interpretations
Probably they were amazed not merely because Jesus actually answered their question about paying the imperial tax, but also because his answer avoided their trap while leaving the meaning of His response open-ended. His answer was neither a definite ‘yes’, nor a definite ‘no’. We can only decide the answer by determining what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God.
Apparently, the questioners were so stunned by Jesus’ quick and unexpected response that they failed to ask the next, and very obvious, questions: What do we owe to God? What does it mean to give God what God is due?
Over the centuries Christians have interpreted Jesus’ answer in multiple ways. They fall into various categories. These include:
- the idea that God is against Caeser;
- the idea that there are two separate, autonomous and broadly equivalent kingdoms — or the equivalence view; and
- the idea that God is way above Caeser — or the non-equivalence view.
Let me start with several unsatisfactory responses.
Implausible interpretations
One of these is the idea that Christians should completely withdraw from society and all forms of politics. But how can Christians be faithful disciples, and salt and light in the world, if we live completely separate lives? Note that Jesus never urged his disciples to disengage from society.
Equally improbable is the interpretation that Jesus is implying that his followers should NOT pay taxes, or at least not to Caeser. If Jesus meant ‘don’t pay’, why then were his questioners amazed, why was there no swift retaliation by the Roman authorities, and why did his challenging of Caesar’s authority not arise more directly at Jesus’ trial not long afterwards?
Another questionable interpretation is that Jesus was endorsing the dualist idea that there are two completely different, radically separate, yet broadly equivalent realms: the Kingdom of Heaven or the spiritual realm, and the temporal kingdoms of this world, that is, the secular or worldly realm. Some Christians argue that a dualistic model is consistent with Jesus words to Pilate during His trial, as recorded in John’s Gospel (18:36): ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place’.
Yet while God’s Kingdom differs from Earthly Kingdoms or nation states, surely human governments are not totally autonomous spheres and thus independent of God’s will and purposes. Rather, Christ is Lord of every part of the cosmos and every aspect of human life — economic, social, cultural and political.
Also, it is clear from the Bible, including today’s readings from Psalm 72 and Romans 13, that governmental institutions are consistent with God’s purposes. These purposes include a desire for peace, justice and the common good. Political authorities, therefore, are under God; they are not separate or independent; they must seek to reflect and pursue Gospel values. Christ is not equivalent to Caesar. Christ is way above and Lord of all things.
Plausible interpretations
Let me turn then to several plausible interpretations of Jesus words: ‘give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’.
First, some commentators think that Jesus’ answer places the responsibility for deciding issues like taxation, and all related matters of government and politics, back on his listeners: this means everyone, you and I included. On this reading, we are all moral beings. God has given us minds to reason with and the Holy Spirit to guide us. We must exercise our reason and prayerfully make moral choices in the light of the circumstances we face, drawing as best we can on the ethical values and principles we discern in the scriptures. We should not expect direct answers from God for every personal or policy question.
Second, some commentators think Jesus is endorsing the moral principle that beneficiaries should pay: that is, those who benefit from something should be willing to pay for the benefit. This reading is consistent with Paul’s advice in Romans 13. Hence, Jesus is saying to his questioners: ‘You cannot use Caesar’s coins and thus receive the benefits of Caesar’s rule, and then refuse to pay his taxes.’ Or to put it differently, if you benefit from a political system and its laws, institutions and public services, you have an obligation to abide by its rules and contribute to its running costs.
The next interpretation is perhaps the most familiar and important. It is sometimes called the non-equivalence view. Basically, in his response to his questioners Jesus simultaneously concedes the legitimacy of governments and of paying the census tax while also subverting the reach of politics and the duties owed to political rulers, whether democratic or otherwise. In other words, while Jesus affirms the existence of governing authorities and the political obligations of citizenship, He also asserts something much more significant, namely the all-encompassing and unlimited nature of God’s call, claims and authority.
In so doing, Jesus relativizes the imperial claim to rule citizens’ lives and calls into question all idolatrous or absolutist human claims: everything on this good Earth stands under God’s overall rule, judgement and grace. That includes presidents, prime ministers, parliaments and other state authorities, whether Donald Trump or Kim Jong-un.
To the question, therefore, of what belongs to God: the answer must be everything, since there would be nothing without God’s creative and sustaining power or Christ’s redeeming love. Hence, no sphere of life, whether governmental or non-governmental, public or private, personal or communal, economic or social, lies outside the authority, concern and grace of God.
Implications for citizenship and politics
What are the implications of this particular interpretation for us as New Zealand citizens in 2020? Here are several suggestions.
1
First, as Christians we have multiple loyalties and responsibilities. We are simultaneously parents and children, employees and employers, buyers and sellers, taxpayers and citizens; we belong to families, communities, organisations, ethnic groups and nations. Hence, we live constantly in many spheres, each with multiple and sometimes conflicting demands. But in each sphere we should seek to follow Christ.
Thus, although we are simultaneously bound by the laws of the state and the ethical imperatives of God’s Kingdom, the latter must always take precedence in the event of any direct conflict between the two. Hence, we must be willing at times to challenge a government’s decisions, even to the point of civil disobedience — that is, openly and deliberating breaking the law and being willing to suffer the consequences, as many Christians have done over the centuries.
But there is no theological basis for opposing the actual existence of governments. Political authorities are an essential feature of human societies. As Paul argues in Romans 13, they are part of God-mandated order; they exist for good reasons — but they always remain under God’s judgement. We must therefore read Paul’s advice to the Romans with care. He cannot have meant that Christians should be completely submissive to every political authority: after all, he challenged the authorities himself on several occasions when he was treated unjustly. In the face of clear injustice, Christians should never be silent.
2
Next, I realise that Christians continue to disagree about the precise role of the state. But there are at least three things about which most agree. First, governments’ responsibilities are limited. Political power must always be exercised within proper, well-defined constraints.
Second, while governments can improve the conditions under which people live, they cannot achieve salvation or redemption. Yes, they can help bring Heaven a little closer to Earth, but they cannot fully realise God’s Kingdom. Only God in Christ can do this.
Third, governments should reflect gospel values. Think of the Sermon on the Mount: blessed are the peacemakers, blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, blessed are the merciful … Governments should seek to preserve the peace, encourage reconciliation between peoples, protect human dignity, show mercy, exercise prudent stewardship of God’s good creation, offer hospitality to strangers, and protect the poor, vulnerable and afflicted. The prophet Jeremiah (29:7) refers to ‘the welfare of the city’ or public welfare.
Amongst other things, governments serve as a vital coordinating mechanism. Someone with legitimate authority, after all, must decide basic things such as which side of the road we should drive on and where and how our roads should be built. Governments can also help to pool a society’s risks, as well as reduce such risks. Think of ACC, EQC, health and safety regulations or environmental regulations.
3
Finally, Christians are all called to be active participants in our communities and nation. This certainly includes voting; for some people it will involve a calling to engage much more deeply — in parties, interest groups, and as candidates for public office. But our political conduct should always reflect our faith. It should embody and exhibit Christian virtues — truth, honesty, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, reconciliation, self-control and so forth (see Tom Wright, Virtue Reborn). The fundamental goal of political involvement should always be to serve our fellow citizens and seek the common good; it should never be for personal gain or individual advantage.
Of course, politics is a challenging vocation, perhaps the most challenging. It is costly in human terms. It involves hard decisions: allocating scarce public resources, making difficult policy trade-offs, and negotiating compromises — sometimes with unscrupulous people and in situations when significant ethical principles appear to conflict.
Hence, Christian politicians and advisers need the prayer and support of their church communities. And we must uphold those who feel called to serve in different political parties and with whom we may disagree. The church, in other words, must transcend party politics and state boundaries. It must be a place of peace, reconciliation, comfort and healing, both between peoples and amongst nations. But it must also encourage, as the Psalmist says, good and just government. It must stand with the afflicted. It must raise its voice to protect God’s good Earth — as Pope Francis has demonstrated so eloquently in recent years.
Over the years, Aotearoa has been well served by Christians across the political spectrum. One thinks of Arnold Nordmeyer and Walter Nash in Labour or Jack Marshall and Bill English in National. Likewise, there have been many Christian activists who have contributed greatly to public life; people like Kate Sheppard, who campaigned tirelessly for women to get the vote. And then there are all those, including many in this church, who have served — or continue to serve — thoughtfully and faithfully as public servants, ministerial advisers, parliamentary staff, researchers, party members, and representatives of iwi, civil society organisations, and business.
We need to encourage people of faith — women and men, Māori and Pākehā, and those from diverse economic, social and cultural backgrounds — to offer themselves in the service of their nation, region and locality, and we need to support such people in prayer.
Conclusion
To conclude, Jesus’s response to the question about taxes reminds us that everything ultimately belongs to God. We are mere stewards of God’s good creation. But to exercise this stewardship well, we need governments and taxes. At the same time, our political institutions must operate justly and within limits.
Our world faces many challenges: pandemics, ethnic and religious conflicts, terrorist attacks, continuing abject poverty, gross inequality, and terrible environmental degradation. There is no shortage of problems requiring our energies, expertise and commitment. Here in our capital city, may we serve Christ faithfully in our many and varied roles, and shine forth His light in all the dark places. As Jesus prayed: Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
