In an opinion piece this week…

John Hewson—

the former leader of the Liberal party…

and now Professor of Public Policy at the Australian National University—

reflected on ‘where to from here’ after the referendum.

He chastised Peter Dutton for abandoning his commitment to holding another referendum…

and for his call for an audit of spending on Indigenous programmes—

noting that, when they were in office, they conducted twenty-two such audits…

without any change in outcome.

Rather, Hewson suggests that…

at no point was Dutton ever interested in a bi-partisan approach on the matter.

Indeed, he argued…

“Dutton had no genuine interest in reconciliation or in closing the disadvantage gap, just scoring a win against the government…he needed a win on any issue, anywhere…as the basis for his attempt to drive Albanese from office”.

And yet, if there is going to be any change to the plight of Aboriginal people in this country—

as Hewson points out—

then the two sides of politics will have to work together to deal with the systemic disadvantages.

It would be “racist to continue to let the challenge drift”, he said.

It’s sad, isn’t it?

But, all too often, that seems to be the nature of politics—

on both sides—

machinations and point-scoring at the expense of real people and real lives.

 

In a way… 

that’s also what seems to be happening in this morning’s story from Matthew’s Gospel.

A group of Pharisees and Herodians approach Jesus in an effort to entrap him:

“Tell us…Is it lawful to pay taxes to the Emperor, or not?”

The tax that they are referring to is the Imperial tribute—

money that, as a conquered nation, they were required to pay to Rome.

It was a potent symbol of their occupation and their subjugation.

The local elite was responsible for collecting the tax…

and they added their own surcharge to it…

using it as a chance to line their own pockets at the expense of the common people—

and adding a further burden to the latter’s already marginal existence.

As a result, the tax was greatly despised.

The Herodians, however, were supporters of the local puppet king. 

They had no problems with the tax at all—

after all, their power and privilege came from the Romans…

and they benefited directly from the tax.

The Pharisees objected to the particular coinage used—

which offended their religious sensibilities…

because it bore the Emperor’s image…

and, in many cases, an attribution of divinity—

but, in real terms, they weren’t opposed to the tax per se.

After all, they held a position of political influence and authority;

they served as bureaucrats and functionaries in the government;

and they, too, benefited from Roman rule and from the tax.

But both these groups used payment of this tax as a wedge issue to attack Jesus.

They were trying to pin him down—

trying to make him say either something politically incriminating…

or something that would undermine his support with the common people.

However, in one of the better-known sayings of the Gospel tradition, Jesus responds:

“Give therefore to the Emperor the things that are the Emperor’s, and to God, the things that are God’s”.

With a piece of cunning logic and rhetoric, Jesus seemingly sidesteps their trap.

At least, that’s how it’s usually interpreted.

Give to the Emperor, the State, and the political 

powers-that-be the duty or allegiance that is appropriate for them…

but give to God the duty and allegiance that is appropriate for God—

as if the two were quite separate.

Indeed, so often this saying is heard from the perspective or ideology of a separation of religion and politics…

of church and state.

But that’s far too modern.

It makes no sense in the first-century world…

where there was no separation between religion, politics, and economics.

They were intimately entwined.

The Romans believed that the Emperor was divine…

and they believed that it was by divine providence— and by their maintaining the favour of their gods—

that they ruled the known world.

The elite in Jerusalem— 

which was centred around the High Priestly families—

controlled the Temple…

dictated religious precepts and observances…

demanded and received tithes and Temple taxes…

and they did so in league with the Romans…

accommodating theologically to the situation that they faced.

 

On one level, Jesus’ response was quite ambiguous.

It all depended on how the hearer understood the relationship between God and the world.

The High Priests, the Sadducees, and the Herodians saw God as distant or uninvolved.

As long as the priests performed their duties…

and as long as they lived ritually pure lives…

that was all that mattered.

They were otherwise free to live as they chose.

Although the Pharisees argued among themselves about the interpretation of the Hebrew Law…

and how they should apply it to everyday life…

they tended to restrict that to everyday practice—

to the operation of families and households.

For them, it was the failure to live pure, personal lives…

that led God to allow the Romans to conquer them.

Each group could have heard and interpreted Jesus’ response as supporting their particular position.

 

So, what did Jesus mean by it? 

 

I think that we can only understand it in the light of what precedes it.

According to the author of Matthew’s Gospel, this episode and this saying come after:

the political parody that was the entry into Jerusalem on a donkey;

the confronting political act of cleansing the Temple;

and after Jesus’ parabolic condemnation of the politico-religious powers-that-be. 

It follows Jesus’ confrontation with—

and challenge to—

their authority and their practices.

So, for this author at least…

what Jesus meant when he exhorted them to “Give…to God, the things that are God’s”…

was inherently economic and political.

It was, in fact, intentionally subversive.

It was a call to live in a way that is consistent with the nature of God…

and the values of God’s Kingdom, namely:

love… 

compassion…

justice… 

and inclusion.

As such, he suggests, the call to love, compassion, justice, and inclusion must supplant… 

surpass… 

and supersede any other demands or obligations.

It certainly overrides any allegiance to the Emperor…

or to the powers-that-be—

even when they are veiled in religious tradition and ideology.

 

In other words, what this says to us as people of faith…

is that we are called to reassess all of our commitments, our obligations, and our allegiances;

to look beyond self-interest or even national-interest;

to look beyond the party-political; 

and never to bow down to any authority or any power…

that does not manifest or incarnate the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are called at all times… 

in all places… 

and in all ways—

whether it be in relation to climate change…

the treatment of asylum seekers and indigenous people…

the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ people in the Church…

reproductive or end-of-life choices…

or whatever economic, social, or political issues that we face in our day—

we are called to embody God’s demands for love, compassion, justice, and inclusion;

and to do so irrespective of any authority or any power that otherwise demands our allegiance—

including the church.