" . . . they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, 'Whose image and inscription is this?'
They said to Him, 'Caesar's.'
And He said to them, 'Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.'" (Mt. 22:19b-22)
In the circles I travel, the church is always reluctant to speak on political issues. There are some good reasons for this, some legal, some theological. One of my most admired professors in college once told me that the Bible is absolutely apolitical. I agree with this. No system of government can be derived from the Bible as superior to others. Why not? Because any system of government, no matter where it lies on the continuum between democracy and monarchy, can only be as good as the people and rulers that constitute the nation. So a godless republic is no better in Biblical terms than a godless, tryrannical dictator. Both are an abomination to God. This does not mean, however, that the Bible contains no principles relevant to politics. Unfortunately, the church has failed to speak on the Biblical principles of politics. This, I believe, has been a deadly mistake.
In talking to Christians, I have so far failed to find anyone who can answer my political question. It's not that I've asked people and they've all given me answers I disagree with. That would be a step in the right direction. That would be a basis for discussion. I have asked many people, and so far no one at all has given me any answer to what I consider most fundamental political question: What is Caesar's? Or, as I usually phrase it, what are the limits of the legitimate exercise of power by the state? It appears that not only do we not have a consensus here, we do not have any answer at all. And this is truly a disastrous state of affairs when we live in a world of ever-increasing encroachment by our civil magistrates against our civil and religious liberties. If we can't answer this question among ourselves as Christians, how will we take a stand against the idols of our culture?
I suggest, if we don't have an answer to my question, we can't possibly make any sense of the Scriptural passage quoted above. How can we understand what Jesus means if we don't even know what is Caesar's? The passage, of course, is well known. The standard interpretation is that Jesus here teaches submission to the civil magistrate. Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Lawful submission to the political authorities is beyond dispute. But that is not all the passage says. Give to God the things that are God's. This means that not everything lawfully belongs to Caesar. In the ancient world, this was a perfectly revolutionary concept: Caesar is not God. Caesar's authority is derivative, not original, and therefore the legitimate extent of his power is not unlimited. If he were God, it would be unlimited, but he is not. He is also not the source of law. Caesar's laws are to be obeyed, but there is a higher law, the law from God, and Caesar's is subservient to God's law, and is only legitimate to the extent that it is compatible with God's law.
The fact that almost no one at all is asking this question, and as far as I know, no one is able to answer it, means that what we implicitly believe, not only in our culture at large, but in the church, is that there are no limits to the legitimate exercise of the State’s power. The State is god. Even for many Christians, I am firmly convinced that while they would never explicitly affirm that the State is god, yet implicitly and functionally in their political views, they believe that the State is god. Surely our culture at large believes that the State is god. Neither major political party in the
In the ancient world, the State was god, but this is not unique to the ancient world. The idolatry of fallen man is always setting up a created thing to take the place of the creator. In all pagan cultures the State is god, explicitly or implicitly. Even as late as World War II in
No comments:
Post a Comment