If [Bill] Clinton’s remark is one mantra, another is the saying: “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” It has been used often as the basis of a kind of theology of politics, especially by politicians who want to safeguard their arena from any intrusion by the Church. Jesus Himself, they like to argue, is telling bishops and theologians to mind their own business. But as usual the neat biblical distinction is not quite as straightforward as it may at first appear.
Remember the context. Some disciples of the Pharisees have come to Jesus. First, they flatter Him, describing Him as an honest man who speaks His mind without fear or favour. And then they pose the question: “Tell us your opinion, then. Is it permissible to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” It is, of course, a trick question. The answer “yes” would identify Him as a Roman supporter, a sympathiser with the occupying power; the answer “no” would identify Him as a potential rebel, sympathetic to resistance. Either answer would undermine His position and influence. But Jesus recognises what is happening. He calls for a coin, asks whose head is on it, and when they say, “Caesar’s,” He replies, “Very well, give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ”” and to God what belongs to God.” He is not establishing the theology of economics, but evading a trap.
“President Clinton’s mantra, ‘It’s the economy, stupid'”
No, Clinton doesn’t talk like that. James Carville does, and the words reflect his judgment about the themes Clinton’s presidential 1992 presidential campaign should emphasize.
[blockquote]He is not establishing the theology of economics, but evading a trap.[/blockquote]
It is true he avoids a trap. It is not true, however, that he [i]merely[/i] avoids a trap. Christ’s words teach a positive (that is, [i]definite[/i]) truth: that Man’s ‘kingships’ are ultimately transient, impotent, and unreal.
It is a critical point, for this passage is [i]not[/i] read correctly as teaching that there are two, co-eval world systems of equal efficacy and equal dignity. We are taught throughout the Old Testament that Man’s systems are ultimately ineffective, in vain, and an affront to God. We are taught in the New Testament [if not also in the OT?] that Man does not live by bread alone, that God’s Annointed will not bring a human system of perfection to Fallen Creation, to pray instead that God’s “kingdom come”, that God’s kingdom is not “of this earth”, that in the end He comes again to judge the quick and the dead ,and that His kingdom will have no end.
This is a very different lesson than teaching that there is something inherently transcendent in a ‘separation of Church and State’, or that the proper relationship with God is to be squeezed into the atomic confines of one’s individual conscience.
This was the gospel reading for this Sunday, and in the homily the priest (a visiting Franciscan) said “Ceaser gets 33% or whatever your marginal tax rate is, but the second half of the teaching does not mean that God gets the left-over 67%. Rather God gets 100% of “all you have and all you do.” What you owe Ceaser can be calculated out grudgingly by an accountant, but God can never be paid what is owed him.