A Sermon preached on Sunday October 18, 2020 at the Christophskirche, Mainz
Isaiah 45:1-7, 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10, Matthew 22:15-22
As those of you who took part in this week’s Bible study heard me say, the Old Testament and Gospel passages both have something to say about the relationship of church and state. Especially Jesus’ saying about taxes in Matthew’s Gospel that has been used to justify very extreme positions on that question, in both directions.
Over the history of Christianity, the relationship between the church and state has constantly changed and evolved. In the beginning, the Roman state saw the early church as a danger or risk and periodically persecuted it and its members. Then Constantine co-opted Christianity and made it effectively the state religion, the title pontifex maximus for the Pope was originally the name of the chief high priest in ancient Rome, a role that for a while was even subsumed into the Imperial office. In the Middle Ages popes saw themselves as being set above the Emperor and kings, not a viewpoint that the latter always agreed with. In the East, in the Byzantine Empire the state and the emperor remained firmly in control and in charge of the church.
The Reformation saw a resurgence in the West of state control over religion, as national churches like the Church of England, or even just those controlled by local municipalities and princes, took the place of the Catholic Church. And jumping forward several centuries, in Germany under the Nazis we saw a new attempt to control at least Protestant religion through the centralised Deutsche Evangelische Kirche and the institution of a Reichsbischof. Those organisations and people who resisted, from many of the Free Churches, the bekennende Kirche, and some parts of the Catholic Church, were persecuted and many were killed.
I think that what history shows, is that really neither the state controlling the church, which often makes the church into an instrument of political power, nor the church controlling the state, when one religious expression is privileged and power can corrupt, are good options. Control, co-option, and coercion are just not compatible with our faith.
But what about the authority that God gives Cyrus in the Old Testament reading? God anoints the Persian Cyrus, just as God anointed Israel’s kings and prophets as God’s servants and seems to offer some quite considerable help to Cyrus in conquering Babylon: “I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut through the bars of iron, I will give you the treasures of darkness and riches hidden in secret places or profit to be gods servant.” (Isaiah 45:2-3) Yes, but this is all to fulfil God’s purposes for God’s chosen people – to set them free to return to and rebuild Jerusalem. And Cyrus doesn’t know that he has been used for God’s plans, just as many other rulers, even Pharaoh, fulfil God’s will without knowing it. That does not make the Persian state an instrument of God in all that it does, only in sending Israel home again.
The language of anointing is poetic language; it also expresses Isaiah’s conviction that nothing is outside of God’s control and that all things can be used to accomplish God’s will: “I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe.” (Isaiah 45:7) This is the same conviction that Joseph had when he says at the end of the book of Genesis (50:20) “Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people.”
What does Jesus have to say then, what does he mean with “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.” (Matthew 2221 AV/KJV) Is he saying, be a good subservient citizen, just do what you are told? No, that’s not the Jesus I know, and if that’s what he wanted to say, I don’t think the Romans would have executed him as a rebel. And render “unto God the things that are God’s” puts it into perspective. Taxation as such is not something to pick a fight over, but that doesn’t stop Jesus criticising unjust, excessive, and oppressive taxation elsewhere in the New Testament. In reality, Jesus is putting clear limits on what we owe the state – here on those things that come from that state in the first place, specifically the coins that have the image of the emperor on them. But there are no limits in what we owe God, because we are all made in God’s image, even Caesar (although he would not agree): nothing is outside of God’s control and all things can be used to accomplish God’s will.
There is another passage that we didn’t hear today but that is often quoted, or misquoted, in this connection: Chapter 13:1-7 of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. …. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. …. Pay to all what is due to them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.” As you can imagine, this passage has been used by many in power to tell their “subjects” to keep silent and offer no resistance: in S. Africa during the Apartheid regime, more recently even by Donald Trump’s first Attorney General.
Paul is writing to the Christian community at the very centre of the Roman empire and arguing, in the interest of those Christians, who are seen with some suspicion by the authorities, not to pick unnecessary quarrels. The Romans state also does some good, it guarantees the rule of law, Paul calls on it himself when faced with summary execution, and it secures a basic infrastructure that benefits all people. Some government is always necessary in a world where evil flourishes when unchecked, but this government or authority is not without limits. The rulers do not hold power in their own right, or because, as the emperors claimed, they were divine. That power comes ultimately from God and is therefore only truly legitimate when it reflects God’s love for humankind and all of God’s creation. Respect and honour are called for, but only where due, where earned, not when that power is abused, not when that state asks us to act against our conscience and faith. Paul’s appeal did not extend for example to worshiping the emperor.
For Paul as for Jesus, the kingdom of God is set above the kingdoms of this world. The proper attitude for a Christian is neither to obey in any and every case, nor to oppose in any and every case. Christians should always be critical citizens. States are human constructions, and therefore never perfect. The proper role for the church is neither control, nor co-option, and never coercion, but cooperation – where it makes sense and serves the common good. As institutions and individuals we work with and support the state and all civic institutions where they do good, when they are instruments for applying God’s preferential option for the poor, for sanctioning bad conduct, for keeping a just peace, for balancing interests, and for caring for the environment.
And where that is not the case, where we see a clear contradiction between the acts of the state and what we believe to be God’s will, we criticise and speak out against wrong decisions and acts, and we advocate, campaign and work for change, and we offer an alternative in those areas we control, because, in Paul’s words from his 1st letter to the Thessalonians, because “the message of the gospel came to us not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.”
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment