Return to Sermon Archive  Return to Church Home Page

Text: Matthew 22:15-22

In the 1996 movie Jerry Maguire, Cuba Gooding, Jr. plays Rod Tidwell, a wide receiver for the Arizona professional football team, and Tom Cruise plays Jerry Maguire, his high-powered pro sports agent. Roger Ebert makes this conclusion about the movie: "The movie is about transformation: About two men who learn how to value something more important than money, and about two women who always knew." (1)

In the most memorable scene in the movie, the two main characters got into a heated argument over their contract. At the end of the scene, they were both shouting the mantra, "Show me the money! Show me the money! Show me the money!" I always think of that scene when I read the almost identical words from Jesus in our text for today.

The Pharisees have joined with the Herodians, the most unlikely of accomplices, in trying to trap Jesus. They begin by flattering Jesus, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality." But then they get to the heart of the matter, "Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?"

Neither group really wanted Jesus to agree with them. The Herodians were hoping that Jesus would say, "No, you should not pay taxes." Then Jesus would have been in big trouble with the Roman authorities. If he so agreed with the Pharisees, the Herodians could charge him with revolution against the Romans.

The Pharisees were hoping Jesus would take the Herodians position and say, "Yes, you should pay taxes." Then Jesus would have lost the support of the people who hated Roman occupation of Israel. If he agreed with the Herodians, the Pharisees could charge him with idolatry. They were trying to catch Jesus on the horns of a dilemma.

However, Jesus avoided their trap altogether by saying, "Show me the coin used for the tax." His wording was just a little different from that of Tom Cruise, but his meaning was the same. "Show me the money."

It is interesting that Jesus himself did not have the coin, so someone in the group brought him a denarius, which was the usual payment for a day's wage. When Jesus asked whose head was on the coin, they answered, "The emperor's." In the time of Jesus, the denarius had the image of the emperor Tiberius, with the phrase "Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of the divine Augustus, high priest."

That is when Jesus answered with one of his most often quoted statements (as phrased in the King James Version), "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s."

This cryptic sentence stumped both the Pharisees and the Herodians. The Scripture records that they were amazed and went away. Personally, I wish they had stayed and asked Jesus to clarify exactly what he meant.

Our first impression of Jesus' quick witted reply is that he has laid down a simple principle to cover all the complexities of living in the real world. Give to the government what belongs to the government; give to God what belongs to God. The difficulty comes in the details. As the old saying goes, "The devil is in the details." Just what exactly does belong to the government? What belongs to God?

If we take literally the words of Jesus, we would give all our money to the government. Caesar's picture was on the coin, so Jesus said give it to Caesar. If our money is provided by the U.S. Government, then we should give it to the government. There were, in fact, times when Jesus said exactly that. To the rich young ruler, he said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

At the very least, it means that Christians should be good citizens. We are admonished in several places in the New Testament to pay a proper respect for government. Particularly, we should pay our taxes and vote.

On the other hand, most Christians agree with Psalm 24, which says, "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it, the world and those who live in it." Everything belongs to God. And more particularly, the image of God is stamped on every human being, so we must conclude that we, ultimately, belong to God alone. But if that is the case, how do we decide what appropriately belongs to government?

Quite frankly, Christians today are as confused about what Jesus meant as the first Christians who heard this witticism must have been. Christians are all over the map in their understanding of the appropriate relationship of Christians to the government and to the world in general.

In America, we have a tendency to equate our government with God's will. Many people don't see any difference between patriotism and the Christian faith.

Looking back at history we can recount times when the things of Caesar tried to take over the things of God and times when the things of God tried to take over the things of Caesar.

In 167 B. C., the Selucid ruler Antiochus Epiphanes used the power of the state to try to stamp out the Jewish faith. He simply wanted everyone in his kingdom to be of the same faith, and that was the religion of the ancient Greeks. So he forbade Jewish women from circumcising their children and sacrificed a pig on the altar of the Jewish Temple. It was a horrible incident that is recounted in books found in the Apocrypha. The Jews call it the "Abomination of Desolation." But such coercion of religion simply does not work.

The Communist regimes of Russia and China during the past century tried to use the power of the state to stamp out religion altogether. Christians were persecuted and worship forbidden except in a few approved places. It is clear that this represents an abuse of the power of the state.

But there were times in history when the things of God tried to take over the things of Caesar. In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Popes ruled with an iron hand over the weak kings of the state. When religion gets such power, it most often leads to abuse. The result was the persecution of individuals who disagreed with the tiniest points of theology. The Spanish Inquisition is an ugly page in the history of religion.

America was founded by Christians who were running from such persecution. They wanted to be free to believe as they chose. I would suggest that America was founded on the freedom of religion because the founders knew that religion cannot be coerced.

Today, there is another movement called Christian Exodus, which hopes to take over the government. According to the Christian Exodus Web site, the organization was founded by Jim Taylor and Cory Burnell in November 2003 “as a response to the moral degeneration of our nation and the lack of any determination by the Republican Party to return our nation to its constitutional moors.

“ChristianExodus.org seeks a return to constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles, and has decided that the best strategy for achieving this goal is to reform the local and state governments. To accomplish this reform, we will relocate thousands of Christian constitutionalists to one particular sovereign State (South Carolina) so that our numbers will make an effective difference in electoral politics,” the Web site says.

"ChristianExodus.org is orchestrating the move of thousands of Christians to reacquire our Constitutional rights and, if necessary to attain these rights, dissolve our State's bond with the union."

I think there is a better interpretation of the words of Jesus, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." And that is the principle of the separation of church and state. I am one of the few these days who seem to still uphold the principle of the separation of the church and state. I come by that position honestly because of my Baptist background.

The term "separation of church and state" was coined in a letter from Thomas Jefferson letter to Danbury Baptists in 1802. He wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

At the time Baptists were a persecuted minority and were very happy that the state was not becoming Episcopalian. But since Baptists have approached a majority status, many of them have changed their minds. When they were a persecuted minority, they wanted the freedom of a state without an official religion. But now that they smell majority status, some of them think the state should be Baptist.

Will Campbell is a writer who is often called the Radical Prophet of the South. In his book entitled Forty Acres and a Goat, he remembers an incident from the school library this way:

"He remembered that one of the books in their library had to be removed when his (Baptist) daddy discovered it was by Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. His discourse on the Battle of Armageddon was not in keeping with Baptist doctrine. As Baptists, they believed in a rigid and complete separation of church and state. Anything in the school which did not reflect Baptist doctrine, especially if it reflected 'Russellite' doctrine, was a clear violation of that principle.

"The civics teacher agreed with his daddy that the book should not be there. And for the reasons his daddy gave. However, the teacher pointed out that also as Baptists they did not believe in burning books. The two agreed on a compromise. They would quietly remove the book from the shelves and place it in the agriculture teacher's compost pit. There, among the rotting leaves, grass clippings, and emptyings of the school wastepaper baskets, there would never be a single and sudden moment when it would cease to be a book. The boy was sure his daddy was right about the book and the teacher right about its disposal. But the library seemed much smaller after that." (Forty Acres and a Goat by Will Campbell, Peachtree Publishers, Limited, Atlanta, 1986, p.3)

I think that incident points out one of the dangers of giving Caesar too much of a dose of religion. The problem is, "Whose religion will it be?"

While the Baptists are highlighted in these examples, the point applies to too many Christians of every stripe today. The separation of church and state is openly under attack by many Christian groups. Let's make the application to our own denomination. If the Disciples can have Disciples prayers in school and Disciples books in the library, we would be happy. But we would certainly argue against having Mormon prayers and Mormon books, and certainly not Muslim prayers or Muslim books. When religion starts infecting politics, it is always sectarian.

I believe the mixing of religion and politics always hurts religion. It is probably because I am just so skeptical about politicians parading their religion around for the sake of votes. True religion is not for show and not for votes.

And I believe any dose of religion in the public realm is of necessity so watered down that I would hardly call it religion. We have people arguing that "under God" must be kept in the pledge of allegiance because it is tradition, and not really a religious statement. Others say the Ten Commandments should be posted because they are a valuable historical document and not in any way religious. Watered down civil and ceremonial religion is not worth preserving.

All we need is the freedom for religion. Faith of many stripes has thrived in America, precisely because America does not endorse religion. History has shown too painfully that when religion gets mixed with politics, it hurts religion.

But there are still religious people who think they must have the power of the state to reinforce God, but the Bible makes it clear that God doesn't need the power of the state.

Some years ago, a Roman Catholic priest serving in the Philippines, was arrested and imprisoned for advocating in favor of the oppressed and poor people. His role, according to the local authorities, was to preach the gospel and not to get involved in politics. Father Edmond Delatorio requested bread and wine to celebrate the Eucharist in his prison cell. Soon thereafter he was asking for more bread and wine since his fellow cell mate was also partaking in the sacrament. The request by Father Delatorio for more bread and wine increased daily. The whole cell block was celebrating the feast of victory of our Lord. As the elements were consecrated, they were passed from cell to cell. Everybody participated in this community of the equal people of God regardless of origin, race, political, or even religious preferences. When the warden was made aware of the situation, he issued an order forbidding Father Delatorio from using bread and wine. In his order, he wrote, "Bread and wine in the hands of this priest becomes a revolutionary weapon."

(The Protestant Hour, The Rev. Rafael Malpica-Padilla, August 29, 1999)

The only power the Church needs is the power of the Bread and Wine. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.