Many volumes have been written about this simple phrase of our Lord’s. It’s a critical moment of teaching for Christians when it comes to figuring out our relationship to the ruling authority — what we would call the government. We live in a system very different from that of Jesus and his disciples, at least in theory, but the question of what belongs to Caesar is still a live one.
In our country, it’s often been especially live for Catholics. The first European types to come here and settle were Catholics, but the dominant influence ended up being English and northern European Protestantism. Only one signer of the Declaration of Independence was a Catholic, and it’s a little surprising that there’s even one given
how much anti-Catholicism was around. It wasn’t just mindless prejudice, but rather a serious doubt that one could be both a good Catholic and a good American. Catholics, it was thought, have an allegiance to the Church and particularly to the Pope that makes it impossible for them to be true Americans. Public schools routinely taught anti-Catholicism along with basic reading and math, one of the reasons such a strong parochial school system developed here. Oregon actually outlawed Catholic schools in 1922, but was overturned by the Supreme Court. When Al Smith was the first Catholic to run for President, it was rumored that the Pope was planning to move to the USA if Smith won so he could keep closer tabs on his new property. As you know we did eventually get President Kennedy, the first and only Catholic President, and one important step to winning that election was consistently promising that no, he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Catholic hierarchy.
 |
Maybe Kennedy’s presidency was one reason the idea sort of quieted down that Catholics can’t be good Americans. We’ve had Catholic candidates for President quite recently, and a Catholic Vice President now, and the subject doesn’t really come up. Six of the nine Supreme Court Justices are Catholics. That fact alone makes it pretty tough to claim there’s widespread institutionalized anti-Catholicism in America. That’s not to say it’s gone: two prominent commentary outlets have recently carried pieces suggesting that Catholics are uniquely dangerous in such positions.
Well, it’s a very old argument, and it’s not only relevant to Catholics. The first Christians had to face exactly the same sort of questions. They answered that they could be both faithful Christians and good citizens, because we learn from Jesus himself that there is such a thing as “what belongs to Caesar.” He didn’t set his followers up as a politically separate group or as rejecting any government other than their religion. I hesitate to invoke the phrase “separation of Church and State” because it means different things to different people, but some form of that notion is certainly at work right here in the Gospel.
But notice this: in answering the question, Jesus also rises above it. Pay the tax, he says, give to Caesar what belongs to him. But even in saying “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” Jesus is presupposing that not everything does, that Caesar’s power is limited and specific. This simple phrase goes a long way to explaining why throughout history you’ll find Christians as good citizens of all kinds of governments and sovereignties, except when Caesar demands what belongs to God. Which he often does, as twenty centuries of martyrs will testify.
So the answer to the question, “how much authority does the government have?” is not ‘no authority at all,’ and it isn’t ‘absolute authority.’ Which condemns us to messy debates for all time. The extreme positions are simple and easy to apply. Finding exactly the right spot of middle ground is complicated and uncertain. Perhaps you’ve noticed that even our most recent history has involved a good deal of argument about exactly what Caesar is allowed to command.
Which is why we should also pay attention not only to what is said in this story, but also to how it’s said. The Pharisees, it’s clear, are out to get Jesus. That’s their starting point. They aren’t trying to understand his point of view. They aren’t trying to convince him that he’s wrong and that there’s a better way of thinking. They aren’t trying to point out an error in his position. No, they’re simply looking for a chance to say “gotcha!”
I think you’ll agree that if you’re on the lookout for this attitude today, you’ll see it everywhere. There is very little attempt to point out where an opponent has made a mistake in thinking, and even less attempt to clarify the positions so better judgments can be made. No, it’s all about finding the opportunity to say “gotcha!,” to throw egg on the opponents’ face, to make them look stupid or evil.
But that isn’t real argument, it’s just combat. Combat is trying to beat the other guy and stand over him in victory. Argument is about trying to establish what is true. It can be combative, because you can go into an argument absolutely convinced that you are right and they are wrong. But your allegiance isn’t to yourself, but to the truth. You don’t want to win for the sake of being the winner. You want to win for the sake of the truth. That’s how to have a good argument. See the difference?
Frank Sheed was a Catholic street preacher in England (you didn’t know we had those, did you?). And one thing Sheed was famous for was the way he handled hecklers and debaters. Someone would oppose him, either viciously or graciously, and Sheed would engage. What he was known for was that at the end of the argument, not only had Sheed made a convincingly winning case, but the opponent was smiling and happy about it. Sheed could crush and devastate an argument, without crushing and devastating the man who’d presented it. This is something you see in a really good debater. It’s something you can do if you have confidence and clear thought on your side. If you don’t, that’s when you have to settle for making your opponent look silly or stupid. That’s when you play “gotcha.” The Pharisees aren’t approaching Jesus this way because they have a good argument against him. They’re out to get him this way because they don’t.
I love a good argument, but they’re hard to find. I was standing in the kitchen of my friend Fr. Bill Hitpas in O’Fallon once having a good argument. Voices were raised, fists were pounded on countertops, faces turned red… and I stopped in mid-sentence and said “you know I’m enjoying this right?” and he said, “oh, me too” and we laughed and got back into it. We were arguing about something important, and each totally convinced that the other was off base. But the argument was had out of love: love for the truth, and love for this poor brother in Christ who was so terribly mistaken.
G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw practically made careers out of this. It would be hard to overstate how far apart their positions were on almost everything. If I can make a bald comparison, they agreed about as much as Rush Limbaugh and Hilary Clinton. They would actually go on tour having debates. These debates were intense because each was convinced that the other was not only wrong, but wrong in the most disastrous and dangerous way. Convinced that if their opponent’s ideas prevailed, the country was finished. And after these roaring debates their next stop would be to the pub together for a beer. Because they were also very good friends.
 |
| George Bernard Shaw, Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton |
Well… I don’t really propose to devote a whole sermon to how to argue. It’s a lengthy example to make a more fundamental point. We have to back up for a second: how does Jesus identify the coin as something belonging to Caesar? Because it bears Caesar’s image. Okay, then, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. And give to God what belongs to God.
Hmm. What it is that bear’s God’s image?
The Pharisees see Jesus as only an opponent, and their encounter only as conflict. Jesus sees them as beloved children of his Father and theirs, people for whom he will willingly lay down his life. And yes, people who are disastrously and dangerously wrong.
That’s the remedy, and that’s why this is about much more than debating techniques. We Christians are called to an incredibly high standard of respect and honor and even reverence for another person. We sometimes hear talk of restoring civility and tolerance, and that’s good, but we’re called to much more than that.
Civility is what I aim for when I stumble across a skunk at night. Human beings deserve much more than that. Tolerance is something I show when someone gives me an overcooked roast. Human beings demand something more.
To see the image of God in others, and to honor it without fail and without exception, is something that is exceedingly difficult. So if you think you’ve already got it covered because you’re such a nice person, I suggest you haven’t faced the real challenge. It includes bad drivers and drug addicts. It includes celebrities and Presidents of the United States and politicians. It includes whoever happens to be a thorn in your side in a given moment when you’re tired and frustrated and hungry and generally in the world’s worst mood.
There is, and always has been, far too much of the ‘gotcha’ game, where people are seen only as opponents, where everyone who disagrees with me is therefore either stupid or evil. In comparison to that, even simple civility and tolerance are a big step forward so… two cheers for civility and tolerance. But we are called to more than tolerance and civility and niceness. We are called to love. To recognize in each person the image and likeness of God, someone Christ died to redeem, and to give honor and respect and reverence.
Comments
Post a Comment