The things which are Caesar's

" . . . 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 U.S. recognizes any limits to the power it may legitimately exercise. And if we don’t know what those limits are, that means they don’t exist as far as we’re concerned. So the State becomes God. Its authority is absolute. It is the source of law, and it is above the law. The State gives, and the State takes away. The State is expected to protect us in every way, to provide for us, and to take care of us. In pursuing these ends, it believes it can legitimately seize, under threat of violence and imprisonment, any amount of money from anyone it sees fit. The State makes some rich, and others poor. It redistributes wealth as it sees fit. In the Bible this is called stealing. It doesn’t matter if I steal from you to put money in my own pocket (confiscation) or I steal from you to put money in someone else’s pocket (ideal socialism) or I steal from you to put most in my pocket and what’s left in someone else’s pocket (actual socialism). It also doesn’t matter if I hire (or elect) someone else because they promise to steal from you and give it to me. All is stealing under Biblical law. But in a State that conceives of itself as the source of law, it is not possible for the State to steal, because stealing only has meaning by definition of the State.

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 Japan the emperor was officially considered a deity. This is because apart from a Biblical worldview, the State must possess absolute authority and be the ultimate source of law, attributes which in reality only belong to God. The United States had a lot going for it. In a short period of time, primarily due to the genius of our political system, we became the most prosperous and free society in recorded history. But in what consists the genius of the American political system? Most people probably think that the genius consists in democracy. George W. Bush does. That’s why, we’re told, we go to war with countries that have not aggressed against us, to give them democracy (whether they want it or not). But the Greeks had democracy 2500 years ago. The genius of the American political system is not democracy. The genius of the American political system was a firm conviction that the God of the Bible, not the State, is the only source of law and the only absolute authority. There were limits to the legitimate exercise of power by the State, and these were set down clearly in the law (the Constitution), and the State itself was under the law. It was not allowed to set aside or ignore the law when it seemed convenient. This is the genius of the American political system, and this is what made the American experiment an unprecedented success. But the idea is no longer compelling to our culture. After all, we have to have some kind of God.

We have now given up on the God of the Bible, and so we are slipping back into the darkness and superstition of all the rest of pagan history, and once again the State is god. And the true God will judge us for our idolatry. He will give us the government we want. We already have it now.

The futility of their thinking.

Here is something the antitheists would not want to see getting around - Russell is still one of their most hallowed patron saints.

"Hard, in fact, were the problems which Bertrand Russell faced in 1950 in his lecture series at Columbia University. 'The Impact of Science on Society', the topic on which Russell lectured, must have appeared a painfully hard impact indeed for anyone aware of the impending race from atomic to hydrogen bombs and beyond. What made that infernal race appear even more hellish was the hatred animating it. The racial hatred which had almost ruined the world was followed by class hatred, of which there is no end in sight yet. Trapped in that race of destruction and hatred man could but feel, regardless of his science, or rather partly because of it, completely at a loss about the meaning of his existence. Since the recovery of meaning could not be had without an escape from hatred, Russell could assign as a remedy only a love which was strong enough to cope with hatred. The only such love was Christian love, the only love which ceases to be itself when it ceases to be a love of one's enemies. To propose that love as the only solution must not have come easily to Russell. Forty years earlier he had made the philosophical and literary scene with his panegyrics of the blind world of atoms with no room for honesty, purpose, and love. Now he had to face the cynicism of all those whom he had entertained for forty years with his gospel of agnosticism and atheism: 'The root of the matter is a very simple and old-fashioned thing, a thing so simple that I am almost ashamed to mention it, for fear of the derisive smile with which wise cynics will greet my words. The thing I mean, please forgive me for mentioning it, is love, Christian love or compassion. If you feel this, you have a motive for existence, a guide in action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty.' [The Impact of Science on Society, Russell, 1953, p. 92]" [The Origin of Science and the Science of its Origin, Jaki, 1978]

It would probably be difficult to find a situation that more compellingly exposes the "futility of their thinking" than someone of this worldview having to ask forgiveness of his audience for mentioning the idea of Christian love and compassion.

She must have been a psycho.

This week at my university, the University of Arizona, a female freshman bought a knife, wrote a fake suicide note, and stabbed her roommate to death in her sleep. While we are steadily growing more and more accustomed to events like this, it still brings with it a sense of shock. But what should bring an even bigger sense of shock is that we are, in fact, growing accustomed to it. Since this fact is of course rooted in the profound antitheism of our culture, it always is curious to find out how these events are interpreted by those who are proponents of and participants in, as well as victims of, this worldview.

As we sadly have had the opportunity frequently to encounter these reactions and interpretations, I have certainly noticed an interpretive trend: "She must have been a psycho"; "she was crazy"; "she must have snapped." I heard this explanation again this week, as I have heard it many times before regarding events from the WTC bombings to the Virginia Tech murders. From now on I am determined to strongly challenge this interpretation, for I now recognize it as the way in which the proponents of the antitheistic worldview evade facing the questions and consequences that their worldview entails.

How so? Surely anyone who flies airplanes into buildings, shoots dozens of classmates, or stabs her roommate to death in her sleep is a crazy psycho, right? Well, I am certainly not qualified to comment on the psychological status of any individuals, but neither is anyone I have heard making these claims. We don't know anything else about her yet, but they know she must have been a "psycho." And in saying so, they are relegating the action to the sphere of anomaly, and they are making a clear and decisive distinction between themselves and the other person. For the implication is that normal people don't do things like that; I do not do things like that.

And I, a sinner who has been raised to life by the Holy Spirit of God on the basis of the saving work of Jesus Christ, know better than this. This action is so far from being anomalous that I can confidently say that it is perfectly rational and consistent with the antitheistic worldview. Furthermore, I recognize that the only distinction between me and people who stab their roommates to death in their sleep, is the sovereign grace of God. Apart from the grace of God, I personally have all the resources within me to stab people to death in their sleep. The source of this wickedness is sin, and it is everyone's problem. And if we studiously ignore the source of scenarios like this, as we do, then we will continue to see them occur with increasing regularity and visciousness. Our culture is profoundly bereft of any explanation of where actions like this come from, as well as why they are even bad actions instead of good actions. It is only the Biblical worldview that can correctly identify the source, as well as the solution, to these deeds. We must not let our non-Christian friends evade the questions which are screaming for answers by a simple shrug of the shoulders and the exhausted cliche "she must have been a psycho." Here is our chance to offer the hope of the gospel to our friends. There is obviously no hope in the four-hour cleansing ceremony by a Native American medicine man that took place in the residence hall on the day after the murder. But this is the best our university can offer.