what is Caesar?s, and give unto God what is God's.
This scripture passage has often been interpreted to indicate an inherent separation between Church and State in Christianity. It has also been cited as grounds for a moral ethic that requires Christians to obey civil law when to do so would not violate the law of God.
But what if the later is not what Jesus meant at all, and that's why he didn't come right out and say "Pay taxes to Caesar and obey his laws."
Rather he said give unto Caesar what is Caesar?s and unto God what is God's. To God one owes absolute respect, obedience, and love... but what does one owe to Caesar? What if one owes dissent, disobedience, and rebellion? How would one judge what is proper to render unto Caesar?
It seems to me that there are at least a few cases where a Christian is not required to obey civil law. In fact, there are times when a Christian is required to disobey civil law, like when Christians were ordered to offer sacrifice to false gods. An easy answer would be to say that that one should always obey the civil law, except in the case that doing so would violate God's law. If to obey Caesar means to disobey God, then one should always defer to the higher authority. However, it seems there may be occasions where to obey Caesar would not imply disobeying God, but it would still be better to disobey Caesar. I'm talking about intermediate authorities between God and the State.
I once heard a Marine mention one such intermediate authority. "God, Corps, and Country." He recognized God as the primary authority, the Marine Corps itself as the second authority, and then the State. Many people have a similar code: God, Family, and Country.
For that Marine, the Marine Corps was a higher good than the State, and many people view their families as a higher good (commanding greater loyalty) than their country. It seems to me legitimate for a person to order his loyalties such that loyalty to the state could rank below loyalty to other temporal goods. God must always be first, and there should be some loyalty to country, but a person could be morally justified in disobeying some laws of the State when to obey those laws would violate a loyalty to a good higher than the State, even if that good were something less than God.
It seems to me that when Jesus says give to Caesar what is Caesar?s and to God what is God's, he is clearly implying a separation between Church and State, and that Church should command higher loyalty. However, I can find nothing in his words that commands loyalty to State be second only to loyalty to God. Christ could be paraphrased as saying Give to God loyalty proper to God, and give to Caesar loyalty proper to Caesar. It is clear that God commands the highest loyalty, but the loyalty proper to Caesar/State/civil law would be relative to the individual, nation, or particular law demanding loyalty. Some rulers, some nations, and some laws would make more legitimate and weighty demands on our loyalty than others. Sometimes a person could be justified in disobeying civil law, even when to obey the law would not entail disobeying God, provided that loyalty to some higher good than the State demanded that the civil law be disregarded.
The upshot of this is that outlaws like illegal immigrants could feel welcome at the Lord?s Table, even though they are living in a perpetual state of ?criminal? conduct.
This thought has been swimming around in my head for a while now, and I hope I have coherently translated it into text. Please let me know what you think about it.
Note: This is an attempt to reconcile Christianity with illegal certain illegal activities. Please do not fill this thread with anti-religious bigotry.
|