SERMON FOR OCTOBER 18, 2020        TEXT: MATTHEW 22:15-22
          Today’s Gospel has been used to support the principle of the separation of church and state. An admirable concept, to be sure, but a distinctly modern one that would have been inconceivable to the first-century parties to this confrontation. The coin under discussion, a denarius, bore not only the image of the Roman emperor but also included among his titles “son of God,” because his father was recognized as a god upon his death. Moreover, historical records indicate that the particular tax at issue here did not actually go to the emperor directly but rather to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. What a peculiar situation: here is Jesus endorsing the payment of taxes that went to support the temple of a Roman divinity at the command of an emperor who was already revered by some of his subjects as a god and who was destined to be formally deified when he died. There was no separating church and state in this mixture of earthly power and divine status.
          The crowds around Jesus did not vote on the issue of whether to be taxed or how much they should pay; they didn’t have a tax code they could use to their advantage. They were a subject people, living in occupied territory. The Romans extorted taxes from their subjects, imposing them as as means of subjugation, humiliation, and punishment. There was no question here of consent by the governed. So if Jesus says yes, pay the tax to Caesar, he will alienate himself from those who despise Roman tyranny, especially the poor who suffer greatly under this financial burden. And if he says no, don’t pay it, the powers that be will undoubtedly hear reports of rebellion afoot. Either way his opponents succeed in undermining his credibility with his followers. It is a a cunning trap, made all the more dangerous by their calculated praise of Jesus as a truth-teller. They mean to leave him no room for equivocation.
          Jesus’ response is masterful. First he calls them on their hypocrisy, and then he takes control of the conversation by posing a question of his own: “Whose head is this, and whose title?” he asks, as he examines the denarius. A graven image of the emperor and an idolatrous title, “Tiberius Caesar, august son of the divine Augustus, high priest”. So when Jesus makes his pronouncement, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” he distinguishes the emperor from God and effectively denies Caesar’s divinity. The coin rightly is given to the one whose image it bears; the tax belongs to the emperor. So, according to that line of reasoning, what rightly belongs to God because it bears God’s image? 
          “Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:26-27). And God blessed them. This is how the human story begins. The impress of the Creator’s hand marks us every one, and the stamp will continue until the end of time. It reveals our shared origin and destiny. It declares us equal. If we are to give to God the things that are God’s, where do we start? Anywhere and everywhere, for there is nothing that does not belong to God, including Caesar and his taxes.
          Christians have wrested from today’s Gospel various understandings of the right relation between religion and politics. One commentator offers this summary, “Some people point to this passage as proof that God and politics should be kept separate -- that things like taxes have absolutely nothing to do with one’s theological commitments. Others say that this story proves that religion is a matter of the heart, and that Jesus doesn’t really care about mundane things like what you do with your money. And some have cited this passage as proof that Jesus taught that the law is the law, and our duty as Christians is to support the government no matter what.” He concludes that all three of these interpretations are dubious. As I said at the beginning, we have to acknowledge that the separation of church and state was not the central concern of the participants in the original conversation. Moreover, whatever we might yet glean about that issue from their exchange would need to be considered in context. It’s a long way from the experience of a subjugated religious minority in the first-century Roman Empire to that of 21st-century American citizens, rightfully demanding equality under the law, on the eve of a democratic election.
          But what if we approach our political situation not from the perspective of giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s but from the second part of Jesus’ pronouncement — giving to God the things that are God’s. Look at the issues facing us — from the crisis in healthcare and the enduring injustice of racism to the growing impact of climate change — and look at the opportunities before us, possibilities for honoring the image of God in our fellow citizens and defending for future generations the creation entrusted to us. For disciples of Jesus everything we do becomes an act of faith and love. As I have written in endless get-out-the-vote letters, “Elected officials make laws, appoint others to positions of power, and decide how our taxes are spent. It matters who is in office; they affect our lives. Please join me in making the choice.” Use your vote to give to God the things that are God’s. 
Amen.