‘Render unto Brussels’, or vote.leave?
by Andrew Symes, Anglican Mainstream.
During the final week in Jerusalem before the crucifixion, some apprentice Pharisees and Herodians came to Jesus and asked “should we pay taxes to Caesar?” What they were in effect asking was “should we vote to leave the Roman Empire?”
Of course in those days it wasn’t quite as simple as persuading Pilate and the Herods to hold a referendum. They wouldn’t have agreed, as many religious leaders and puppet officials were benefitting nicely from membership of that political and economic union which included much of Europe, and some of north Africa and the Middle East. (The addition of a new member, Britannia, would take place around ten years later!) But also Rome itself was determined to hold its territory by force. Less than forty years later, as Jesus predicted, Palestine did try to leave the Empire, and the Jews were ruthlessly crushed.
The question that the teachers of the law asked Jesus was designed as a trap, to try to get him to show his colours either as a rebellious pro-independence “leaver”, or a “remainer”, a lickspittle sell-out to the foreigners. His answer could be seen as a classic politician’s evasive fudge, but in fact of course he was pointing to the big picture, as we shall see later.
Contemporary relevance? It is now ten days since David Cameron returned from his marathon round of negotiations with other leaders of the European Union, and announced that the deal he had secured for Britain was complete. Now we know that on 23rd June, the citizens of Britain will be asked a very similar question to the one posed to Jesus: should we pay taxes to Caesar? Should we continue as part of a community of nations with increasing harmonization of laws, loss of sovereignty and self-determination to an oppressive power based on the continent to which we are not geographically linked by land, yet with huge advantages in terms of trade, communications and peace? Or should we break away, free ourselves from the bureaucratic power that appears sinister and absurd in equal measure, and re-establish ourselves as an entirely self-governing entity, taking full control of our own future – but with huge question marks about what that might look like?
The EU is very unlike the Roman Empire in many ways: violence and efficiency among them. But the question that faced Jesus is similar to the one that faces every adult Christian in the UK: what kind of state is best for the flourishing of the people of God and all inhabitants? To what extent should followers of Christ be involved in this political thinking and decision-making, and what is the theological basis behind the thinking? At the time of Christ there would have been different schools of Rabbinic thought: those who advocated making the best of Roman occupation whatever the disadvantages, and those who were certain that self-governance and independence would provide a better context for a nation dedicated to faithful worship of Yahweh.
So too today. Since the announcement of the EU Referendum date, a group of Anglicans campaigning for Britain to leave has emerged, closely followed by spokespeople for those who think we should stay in. Right of centre political commentator Adrian Hilton, who blogs as “Archbishop Cranmer”, has formed an unlikely alliance with socialist vicar Giles Fraser to argue for a “Brexit”; Dean Emeritus of Durham Michael Sadgrove has put his head over the parapet to speak for the “remainers” (it is thought that his viewpoint is shared by the majority of Bishops, though they will be attempting to remain neutral during the next four months).
Sadgrove and Hilton summarized their respective cases in a short debate on Radio 4’s Sunday programme, (here, from 36 minutes in), and when the interviewer pressed them for some theological backing, it was noticeable that the case of both was quite weak * [see below]. Does this mean it is fruitless trying to claim God’s backing for either side in this debate, as other commentators have suggested? When Jesus gave his famous reply to the question about membership of the Roman Empire with its attendant financial obligations, did he mean that God is not interested in our politics?
Perhaps we can look at the passage in Matthew 22 a bit more closely. In reply to the question, Jesus asked for a coin (of course a Roman one – Palestine was part of a monetary union), and said “whose portrait is this?” When the reply came that the image was Caesar’s, Jesus’s famous reply, “render unto Caesar”, assumes that the image imprinted on the object shows the owner of the object. Caesar’s face is on the coin: it belongs to him. What then belongs to God? Using the same assumption, it is the object which bears his image, his face, which is each human being. The message seems to be that taxes, a symbol of political submission to earthly authority, are payable by law to that authority. But much more important is the voluntary spiritual offering of each person’s very self to the universal authority to whom we all owe our lives. Ironically at the time of this conversation the earthly power to whom they paid some money was not visible, a remote figure hundreds of miles away in Rome. But the one to whom they owed full allegiance and love was standing right before them.
Jesus refused to advocate rebellion against the Roman Empire, and an independent theocracy for God’s people. After his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, his teaching (much to the frustration of many) focused on corrupt religious practice and the core spiritual realities of how to be right with God through faith in the Messiah, not on the democratic deficit of Roman rule. In Matthew 21-23 Jesus seems to be saying, in effect, “you think Roman rule is bad – look at the leaders among your own people – will they be any more godly, selfless or compassionate?” But he also in the tax passage pointedly refused to accord Caesar any higher status than a human administrator or steward. It was this teaching, undermining the cult of imperial power, which later led to the terrible persecution of the church despite it not posing a political or military threat to the Empire.
How does this answer the question about how UK Christians should vote in the EU referendum? There are good arguments on both sides, held by Christians whom I respect. We all need to take part in the democratic process, make up our minds and vote. But the lesson of this passage of Scripture is that ultimately, whatever political system we are under, though very important, is secondary to the primary urgent necessity of being part of the Kingdom (note deliberate political language) of God through repentance and faith in Christ, and being salt and light in whatever socio political situation we find ourselves in. The early Christians did not seem to spend much time thinking about leaving the Roman Empire – the more pressing question was participation in, or separation from, the structures of institutional religion, whether Jewish or pagan. But that is a subject for another day.
[* – Sadgrove selectively quoted “It is not good for man to be alone” from Genesis 2, in advocating the importance of good neighbourliness. Hilton said that according to the Bible, “God is concerned about sovereignty” – applying this to criticize the way the EU imposes power from above, taking away democracy and self-determination. Both arguments rather obviously take Scripture out of context. Genesis 2:18 is about marriage not international relations; “sovereignty” in the Bible refers to God’s rule rather than who makes the decisions about agriculture and fishing policies. It’s worth looking at the writing of both men which gives a better account of their thinking, here , here and here.]
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
