Unto Caesar

NOTES

• Take Home Points

  The Gospel of the Kingdom of God is at war with the kingdoms of this world. However, it’s a very strange war. It’s ironically not for the warmongering.

  Jesus and the apostles had much to say on the issue of authority. In fact, the way we respond to authority is a core value of the Kingdom of God.

  All authority stems from God, and we are to honour and submit to governing authorities as unto God.

  The role of government is to protect the rights of their citizens. All their citizens. And all their rights.

  Human rights are God-given and they may be summed up in the ethic of reciprocity: treat others as you would like others to treat you.

  Government does not give these rights, nor can government revoke these rights. Government exists solely at the will of the people to protect their God-given rights.

  While we are to submit to governing authorities, if the state enforces laws that contradict God’s commands, submission disobedience is required.

  Our Kingdom mandate as salt and light is to transform society from the inside out, not through a religious-political agenda.

  The marriage of church and state is a flawed union. It was for ancient Israel, and it would be so today.

  The role of the ekklesia is not to play society’s moral police. Our role is to serve as a testimony of God’s character and to serve society through generosity and good works.

  Our civil response includes praying for governing authorities, living above reproach, serving the poor and marginalised of society, exercising our democratic responsibilities, and supporting followers of Jesus who serve in politics.

• What does “the Wall of Separation between church and state” mean?

  Let’s take a moment to explore Thomas Jefferson’s phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.

  A founding father of the United States, Jefferson served as the third US President from 1801 to 1809, having served as the second Vice President between 1797 and 1801.

  He believed the tyranny that plagued Europe was due to monarchies and corrupt political establishments, and he was deeply suspicious of the institutional reach of the Church of England. He also believed in limited and decentralised government.

  In 1802, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to him with concerns over their religious freedom. This was not a superficial fear but one rooted in the European religious persecution from which many of the first Christians to arrive on American shores had fled.

  Jefferson assuaged their fears, insisting that there was indeed a “wall of separation between church and state”. In other words, the government would not infringe upon their religion freedom. The wall of separation protected them from a political agenda.

  The United States Supreme Court affirmed this as an “authoritative declaration” of the First Amendment in 1879, which affirms, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

  A Two-way Street

  However, what many believers fail to understand is that the wall of separation is a two-way street.

  To be clear, the Danbury Baptist Association was principally concerned that corrupt religion—like that which dominated much of Christendom in Europe at the time—would usurp the fledgling US government and thus, impose a political-religious agenda upon them.

  Jefferson’s wall of separation assured the Danbury Baptist Association that they were protected from a political agenda because government itself was protected from religious agendas.

  The wall of separation protects the church from political agendas and it also protects the state from religious agendas.

  The answer to our world’s problems is not a Christian political party. We don’t actually want any religious party governing the country. Not only would a ruling Christian political party be forced into compromise, such is the nature of civil governance, it would preempt and validate the rise of other religious political parties. That’s one step away from inviting Sharia Law.

  No, a healthy, functioning human society needs civil government free of all religious agendas.

  If a religious party rules a nation, whether it’s Christian or Muslim, there can be no true freedom of religion. And if there is no freedom of religion, religious bias is inevitable and the spectre of religious persecution looms.

• What does praying for governing authorities entail?

  Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence … I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting…”

  (1 Timothy 2:1-8, italics added)

  In his open-hearted letter to his young protégé, a letter addressing various spheres of authority, Paul urged Timothy to remind the believers in the influential city of Ephesus to pray for “kings and all who are in authority”.

  He reminded them of the importance of their witness as model citizens—“all godliness and reverence”—and urged the “men” to pray “without wrath and doubting”.

  Why the men? (He addresses the women specifically in verses 9-15.)

  Because only men had legal status in the secular world in the first century; only men were likely to take up aggressive, antagonist action against the civil government. Women had no legal status at all and no platform to express anti-authority notions. In this case, the exhortation was not relevant to them. Paul was urging men to pray and trust God rather than adopt anarchistic attitudes. Why? To do so would undermine the public witness of the faith by courting controversy, picking the wrong battles and provoking unnecessary recriminations. Of course, today, given that women do have civil rights, this exhortation is applicable to them, too. See the in-depth article on Women in Ministry & Leadership.

  Aside from honouring the governing authority as unto God, as he taught in Romans 13:1-7, Paul expected the ekklesia to play their part in keeping the peace: “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life”. His primary concern was the good standing of the church in the eyes of the public in order for his primary passion, the Gospel of the Kingdom, to flourish.

• Why does modelling above-reproach citizenship matter?

  Now about your love for one another we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other. And in fact, you do love all of God’s family throughout Macedonia. Yet we urge you, brothers and sisters, to do so more and more, and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.”

  (1 Thessalonians 4:9-12 NIV, italics added)

  What? Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life? Mind your own business?

  Yes, this is Paul speaking, the fiery apostle who blazed a trail for the Gospel into the Gentile world.

  With unbelievers in mind, “outsiders”, what evangelistic strategy does Paul deliver to the believers in Thessalonica? Knock on doors? Set up a soapbox on every street corner? Put on some loud demonstrative display?

  No, Paul urged them to lead a quiet life, to mind their own business and to work with their own hands. In a nutshell, live simply, work hard and be an example.

  The goal? To win the respect of outsiders.

  Not only did Paul want to demonstrate the beauty of the new society in Christ, it was crucial for the flourishing of the Gospel of the Kingdom. 

  His consistent appeal was for a faith expression that modelled the peace, unity and harmony found in Jesus. His ‘evangelistic strategy’, for a lack of a better phrase, centred on living as upright, model citizens who, individually and collectively, testified of God’s wisdom and order. A new society that would serve as a tangible witness of the heart and mind of God, both validating the message and enabling further advance of the Kingdom.

  In a phrase, our Christ-centred lives and Christ-filled communities are to be above reproach. Unimpeachable.

  Now, it goes without saying that if God prompts us to do more in proclaiming and demonstrating the Gospel, we should. Enthusiastically and boldly. However, Paul believed that living an exemplary life, individually and collectively, would create moments where outsiders ask questions about the hope that sustains us (Colossians 4:5, 6 c. 1 Peter 3:15).

  The early church were such model citizens that they eventually won over the Empire despite the capricious and cruel treatment they received at the hands of the Emperors.

• Why the emphasis on advocating for the poor and marginalised?

  Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

  (James 1:27, italics added)

  The most marginalised people of first century society were orphans and widows. Women and children were entirely dependent on the men in their lives, who alone held public status. To be a widow or an orphan left you vulnerable in every way. James was not only concerned with those falling through the cracks of a society fraught with male chauvinism and injustice, but he called us to keep unspotted from the world, too.

  However, he was not alluding to personal piety; he was not calling his audience to merely shun worldly vices.

  Rather, in the very next verse James explained what he had in mind. He confronted our tendency towards prejudice (James 2:1ff)—the very virus from which injustice goes airborne—before calling us to an exemplary faith backed up by works of justice and service (James 2:14ff).

  In other words, the call to a pure, unspotted faith is not a fixation on personal piety, but it has everything to do with a heart free from prejudice, corruption and self-seeking. A life motivated by God’s self-giving love.

  While we tend to think of good works as primarily right behaviour, the New Testament focus is largely on good works that relieve the misery and suffering of others.

  When Paul recalled his visit to Jerusalem to compare notes with James and Peter about his understanding of the Gospel, not only were they of the same mind concerning the message itself, but they all felt strongly about serving and supporting the poor and marginalised.

  They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.”

  (Galatians 2:10, italics added)

  To “remember the poor” wasn’t about giving mere mental assent to the idea. The Greek word for “remember” (mnemoneuo) means “to exercise the memory, to rehearse”. It is the word from which the English word “mnemonic” originates. Today, we would say, keep it front of mind.

  Furthermore, Paul said he was “eager” to do so, a Greek word (spoudazo) meaning “to make haste, to be zealous”. This was an issue at the forefront of Paul’s mind.

  Remembering the poor isn’t an optional extra or something left to a side ministry of the church. Rather, it validates our witness. Without it, the Gospel appears empty.

  The question we need to ask is, who are the poor and marginalised today? While this certainly includes orphans (and in some cases, widows, too) and those living in poverty, it also extends to those denied their basic human rights.

• How do we exercise the responsibilities of democratic citizenship?

  Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.”

  (1 Peter 4:10 NIV)

  While the above verse refers to spiritual gifts, it is also a general principle about our attitude towards privilege, responsibility and stewardship.

  Living in a democratic society, we have the privilege and responsibility to vote and to stand for election (if we feel so led). Applying the principle of 1 Peter 4:10, we exercise our right to vote or stand for election, as faithful stewards and do so in service of others, specifically our community and country.

  However, as this article has made clear, a clear grasp of the separation of church and state is critical in how we exercise both rights.

  Let’s focus on our right to vote.

  Voting for the candidate or party we feel best serves society is a matter of conscience. Hence, who believers vote for in an election will vary. The same is true when voting on issues through a referendum.

  The referendum on the issue of same-sex marriage in Australia in 2017 is a good example. Many Christians voted against same-sex marriage unaware there was a valid reason other Christians voted for it.

  Most assumed that the only Christian response was a nay vote.

  For certain, there is a good argument about the nature of marriage itself and whether homosexual marriage is consistent with what marriage as an institution represents; that is, marriage is not just about protecting the rights of two people but it’s materially tied to the procreation and raising of children.

  Christians who voted against same-sex marriage because they concluded a material disparity exists had a valid ground to do so. However, understanding the role of government to protect the rights of all its citizens, Christian nay voters should have worked hard to propose another way for the legal protections of marriage to be afforded to same-sex couples.

  Those who voted against it purely because of “Christian conviction” failed to understand the difference between the domain of church and the domain of state. They erroneously imposed their religious conviction on secular society without considering how it would feel if the same was done to them.

  Christians who concluded that there wasn’t a disparity in what constitutes the nature of marriage (procreating and raising children is better in a marriage bond but doesn’t constitute the raison d’etre of marriage) and understood that the role of government is to protect the rights of all its citizens, would in good conscience vote to support the government to do so.

  The point here is not to make a case for a yea or nay vote, only to point out that while Christian conviction may influence our perspective on civil policy, it should not determine it.

  Properly understanding and supporting government’s role to protect all its citizens and all its citizens’ rights, we can vote on issues based on the merits of the argument without violating Christian conscience.

  In other words, we can cherish personal and communal convictions as the ekklesia, rendering unto God what we deem is God’s. At the same time, we can render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, supporting the government to protect and support the rights of all its citizens.

  Sadly, Kingdom thinking on this issue escapes many in Christendom.

• Why support followers of Jesus called to serve in politics?

  Daniel answered and said:
  ‘Blessed be the name of God forever and ever,
  For wisdom and might are His.
  And He changes the times and the seasons;
  He removes kings and raises up kings;
  He gives wisdom to the wise
  And knowledge to those who have understanding’.”

  (Daniel 2:20, 21)

  As mentioned in the previous point, we have the privilege and responsibility to stand for election in a democratic society if we feel called to do so.

  The answer to our world today does not lie in a Christian denomination, or a Christian organisation, or a Christian political party. It lies in followers of Jesus who, anchored in a faith community and devoted to the Body of Christ, serve in the key mind-moulding, value-shaping spheres of society, bringing godly change to politics, education, business, media, science, sports, and the arts.

  In terms of government, think Joseph, Deborah, Daniel and Esther.

  Like Joseph in Egypt, Deborah in Israel, Daniel in Babylon and Esther in Persia, we need men and women who will serve in corridors of power and platforms of governance with humility, compassion and wisdom. And these men and women need our prayers and support as they navigate the challenging environment of politics.