Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Sermon on October 16, 2011

“Church and State” (Psalm 9:1-9; Matthew 22:15-22)
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Rev. John B. Erthein

How providential that these lectionary readings, which are set without regard to current events, sometimes coincide with relevant current events. I am thinking specifically of a controversy that arose when a minister who supports Governor Rick Perry for President said one should support a born-again Christian for President, such as Governor Perry, even if another candidate (meaning Mitt Romney) was a good person. The minister later said Mormonism (Romney's faith) was not Christian and was a cult.

Quite aside from whoever should be President, and quite aside from whether the Mormon faith is Christian or not, some important questions were raised in my mind as a result of this controversy. What should Christians look for in a political leader? How much can or should our political system reflect Christianity? What is the proper relationship between church and state?

I am not going to spend a lot of time on Psalm 9 this morning, except to say that it affirms the whole Word of God affirms … the God is sovereign over his creation. Nations rise and fall, but God stands forever. Everything in creation, including every government, exists under the judgment of God.

So what does that mean? For a time, it meant that God's chosen people were to live under a theocracy, where God's laws would be the law of the land. That was Israel. And it was not wrong for Israel to be a theocracy. But I have two observations to make about that. First, the theocracy frequently did not operate as God desired. There were frequent outbreaks of corruption, of abuse of power, of heresy in high places, and social unrighteousness, in which the poor and widows were not aided and where God's moral laws were transgressed. Second, the language in Psalm 9 does not, I believe, refer only to Israel, but to all nations. In other words, all nations even then were under God's ultimate authority and judgment. The people of Israel understood God as the great liberator, the One who had freed them from Egyptian oppression. God exercised his authority and judgment over Egypt. And, I would further say that, while God ordained a theocracy in the past (Israel) and will do so in the future (meaning when Jesus Christ comes again in glory to reign over us, that will be the perfected theocracy), God does not ordain a theocracy for every nation in every time. God does, however, always have the nations under observation. And no matter what kind of government exists, and no matter how powerful the country, God is the ultimate authority.

By the time Jesus walked the earth, Israel was no longer a free nation. It was under the domination of the Roman Empire. The Romans were actually religiously tolerant to a point: Jews could practice their faith, for instance. But obviously the Roman Empire was not a Jewish theocracy. Indeed, at the time of Christ the Romans were exalting their Emperors so highly that they were being seen as virtual gods. Rome was proudly pagan. It must have been incredibly galling to be a Jew living under the yoke of pagan Rome. Many Jews were hoping for a Messiah who would throw off the Roman occupiers and restore Israel as an independent kingdom. Some saw Jesus as this kind of savior.
But not everyone looked to Jesus as a political or a spiritual savior. He threatened many people, including many members of the religious establishment. We are looking at the 22nd chapter of Matthew today, which takes place after Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem and his highly controversial cleansing of the Temple of the moneychangers. There has been constant back and forth between Jesus and his detractors, giving Jesus the occasion to share some of his parables which have since become famous. Jesus' opponents have not yet been able to trap him into making any damaging statements, but that does not stop them from trying. The Pharisees send one of their number to question Jesus on the sensitive matter of taxation. I don't know of anyone who likes to pay taxes, but at least we are paying taxes to our own elected government. But the people in Israel had to pay taxes to the Roman occupiers, a source of enormous (and understandable) resentment. Notice that the Pharisee ludicrously tries to soften up Jesus by flattering him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful person and take no notice of anyone, since you are not impressed by people's status.” Ironically, that was a true statement: Jesus really is like that. But this Pharisee does not believe so, so he is knowingly saying something he considers dishonest.

Jesus, of course, is not someone prone to false flattery, and he calls the Pharisees “hypocrites.” One reason he says this is because of the false flattery: if the Pharisees said what they thought they would yell at Jesus being an arrogant blasphemer. But there may be another reason for the charge of hypocrisy. I am indebted to R.T France's excellent commentary on Matthew for this information. Jesus asked the Pharisees to give him a denarius coin. And as we know he pointed to the inscribed portrait of Caesar on the coin and told his listeners to give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is due God. But Jesus is not merely using the denarius as a visual aid. Pious Jews considered the denarius an “idolatrous” coin because it carried a human portrait (thus violating the second commandment). And worse than that, it had an inscription referring to the Roman Emperor as Divi Filiuis, or “son of a god” (violating the first commandment). On the other side of the coin was the inscribed phrase “pontifex maximus,” or “high priest.” The denarius could hardly have been better designed to offend pious Jews.

But the Romans, who were often brutal but not usually irrationally brutal, actually tried to honor Jewish sensibilities (or they did not want to cause unrest for no good reason), so they allowed the Jews to coin their own, non-idolatrous copper money, which was fine for normal, everyday business; there was no need for a Jew to possess the denarius. Jesus apparently did not have one … but the Pharisees did, and within the temple at that! Since the Pharisees were using the coins with the Emperor's image on it, they could hardly object to paying tax to the Emperor. Indeed, one way of translating the Greek phrase in verse 21 is “to give back to the Emperor.” In saying this, Jesus is affirming that one can respect the pagan Emperor, but continue to worship the one true God.

Now, why would the pagan Emperor even merit respect? Certainly, among the Jews were a group called the Zealots (a word that carries meaning to this very day). They favored violent revolution. The last thing they would advocate would be respect for Rome. And yet, there were some things that the Roman Empire did that benefited people, including the Jews. The Romans provided peace and predictable laws; they built amazing infrastructure. So the tax was not just an imperial imposition, but a logical payment for services rendered.
Much of the New Testament advocated that Christians respect the ruling authorities. Paul famously wrote in Romans 13:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God … Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment … For [the authority] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer … For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God … Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed (Romans 13, selected verses. ESV).

Peter wrote similarly in 1 Peter 2:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good … Honor everyone. Honor the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor (1 Peter 2, selected verses. ESV).

Remember, Paul and Peter were talking about a pagan Emperor in charge of a pagan Empire. They were talking about a government that frequently did not reflect Christian values. The Romans had slavery and gladiatorial games; they were militaristic and imperialistic. And yet Christians were called upon to pay taxes to Rome, obey the Roman laws, and honor the Roman Emperor.

There are areas of the New Testament that give a much different picture of Rome, such as Revelation, during a period of persecution against the church. Christians would honor the emperor, but they certainly would not worship him. In that instance, the state was demanding too much allegiance. And in Acts, there were examples of disciples disobeying laws that prohibited them from sharing the Gospel.

So how can the Scriptural teachings be applied today? Well, I think most issues before us as Christians living in the United States of America are primarily prudential, meaning one can reach different conclusions without violating the Gospels. In other words, whoever is our President, and whatever his (or her!) program might be, we can certainly disagree if we feel the policies are wrong, but we should not assume “the church” can reflect what Jesus would have definitely said on, for example, what kind of health care reform we should have; or what our tax rates should be; or how we should reduce debts and deficits; or how we can best help the poor. There are many ways in which to do all of these things. I think the church has a better chance of influencing debate if it chooses its causes carefully. I personally dislike the hyperactivity of our denominational officials and assemblies that feel the need to address every issue that occurs to someone. My personal favorite example of this occurred at a past General Assembly (it might have been in 2004 or 2006). The Assembly actually spent time considering an overture from a Presbytery (meaning the Presbytery had spent time considering it) addressing an aspect of global warming caused by an excess number of cows … excess because we eat too much beef. Because we have so many cows, they release a disturbing amount of methane gas into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Yes, friends, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) took up the issue of cow flatulence.

That's a funny example, but what is less funny is that most overtures to General Assembly seem to concern every aspect of politics and public policy … far more so than spreading the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. So, what are we known for as Presbyterians? Are we known for the Gospel, or for political and social pronouncements? Now, surely politics and policy have their place, and the church should speak on some issues … but is it too much to ask for some reserve, some discernment, some recognition that when we talk about politics we are generally not talking about essentials of the faith? I mean, surely we can spend more time and effort talking about how to reach the unsaved with the message of eternal life through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!

There are many, many important issues that perhaps deserve comment, as well as theories about church and state, but that is not really the purpose of this particular sermon … and I don't think that is the purpose of the Scriptures, either. The Bible tells us how God will grant us salvation if we come to him in faith through Jesus Christ. THAT must be the primary calling of the church … not to run the government or demand a policy to address every conceivable issue.

Now, if the government were to demand that we stop worshiping Christ and spreading the Gospel, and that we instead worship the government, then we would have cause to resist its authority. But otherwise, whatever we think of the President, whether or not we think the President is a Christian, however much we like or dislike what he is doing, his authority still comes from God, and we are called upon as followers of Jesus Christ to respect and honor the Presidency … and all other institutions of authority in our nation. Is it important to have a born-again Christian as President? Well, it would be nice … but being a born-again Christian is no guarantee that a person will make a good President. Who has the best mixture of character and qualifications to be President? That is, again, a prudential judgment.

Whoever is elected President next year, do be in prayer for that person, and for our nation, as we continue to live under God's ultimate authority. And be confident in God's providence and care for his creation, including our great country, while remembering that we also stand under his ultimate judgment. Amen.

No comments: