Reading for Proper 24A:
Mt. 22:15-22
October 20, 2002
The Rev. Karen Siegfriedt
St. Jude the Apostle Episcopal Church, Cupertino,
CA
"Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God, the things that are God's." (Mt. 22)
Today's gospel story addresses two questions: What do we owe to the governmental authorities? What is our obligation to God? Today I would like to talk about our participation in war and peace, using the gospel of Matthew as my text.
In the Year 6 of the Common Era (i.e. AD), Rome imposed a "head tax" on all of the people of Palestine to be paid with Roman currency. Most of the Jewish population at that time were barely surviving. This taxation without representation caused great consternation among most of the people including the Pharisees. They resented Roman occupation and reluctantly accepted it as a necessary evil. The Herodians on the other hand, were the elite and privileged class of Palestine, desiring to keep alive the reign of Herod. In order to stay in power, the Herodians had to sell out to the Romans and thus publicly supported them in their taxation efforts. It is into this context that the Pharisees and Herodians tried to trick Jesus into condemning himself.
The question posed to Jesus by these groups was: "Is it lawful to pay taxes to emperor?" If Jesus were to say no, then he would be labeled as a political dissident. If Jesus were to say yes, then he would lose support by those who felt deeply oppressed by Roman domination. Jesus answered them: Give to the government what belongs to the government and to God what belongs to God!
In today's gospel, Jesus does not specifically lay out what belongs to God. He assumes his audience knows. But such clarity is not always evident to the untrained Christian of the 21st century. As North Korea continues to refine nuclear material; as Iraq produces weapons of mass destruction; as Al Qaida continues its efforts in terrorism, each of us needs to be clear about what belongs to the government and what belongs to God. What are the limits a government can make on us? To whom is our primary allegiance? Does God come before nation? Under what circumstances do we dissent? How do we respond to the President's position on Iraq? What is God calling us to do?
Hard-wired into every human being is the instinct to survive. Without this instinct, the human race would cease to exist. Fear, anger, and aggression are all emotions that equip us to fight in order to protect ourselves and our families from harm. On the other side of the spectrum is the instinct to give life. The emotions of compassion, generosity, and sacrifice empower us to perform heroic deeds in the face of danger, to take risks in becoming healers to those who are suffering, and to extend the circle of care and compassion beyond ourselves and our own tribe.
It seems that at this point in the evolution of human consciousness, the instinct to survive is stronger in most people than the instinct to love. This is especially true when times get tough, the money dries up, and political & personal insecurity raises its ugly head. When times are tenuous and fear dominates, it becomes easier to respond with acts of aggression than to make the necessary sacrifices needed for seeking peace. What wisdom, tradition, and power do Christians turn to in making decisions about war and peace in the face of aggression? Where does God come into the equation?
There are four possible stances toward use of force and violence in war: 1. Pacifism/non-resistance. 2. National Interest War. 3. Holy War/Crusade (a religious duty). 4. A Justified War. It is easy (both for liberals and conservatives) to find passages of Scripture to justify all of these positions. For instance, those who support a Holy War or a National Interest War could easily turn to Deuteronomy (20:16): "But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them…just as the Lord your God has commanded."
The pacifists and non-resistors tend to turn to Matthew (5:38) for support: "You have heard it was said: 'A eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well." I am not sure how pacifists deal with the passage where Jesus makes a whip of cords to drive the money changes out of the temple (Jn. 2:13) or with the passage in Luke (22:36) where Jesus advises his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy a sword.
Those who support a justified war often quote passages about the virtues of justice. Justice is a core value in the Bible. Just War supporters will readily point out that the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder" prohibits indiscriminate killing among the covenantal community but does not forbid killing under certain circumstances. Scripture allows for the death penalty in cases of idolatry, insubordination of children, adultery, and defense against the invading nations. So as you can see, flicking through the Bible to support one's own stance on war and peace can be viewed as a "fundamentalist" approach to Scripture. Episcopalians know that the Bible does not contain a systematic theology and thus it is necessary to interpret the Scriptures through the lens of love. We also rely on Christian tradition and reason (as well as Scripture) in determining God's will for us. For people of conscience, there are really only two honest stances toward the use of force and violence in war: Pacifism/non-resistance, or a Justified War.
I wish I were more like my Mennonite brothers and sisters when it comes to non-resistance and peace. They seem to embrace the highest level of New Testament thought when it comes to seeking peace. When personally attacked, Mennonites will not fight back and would rather sacrifice their lives than to perpetrate violence. Ultimately, peace brings peace and war brings war. But as for now, I would probably fight back if a loved one or I were being attacked on the street. If the bombs were being dropped in my back yard, I would defend my country. I am glad that Hitler was defeated, even if it required a war. The difficult issue for me is, to know without hesitation, when a "just war" is justified. When making such a decision, I need to rely on the wisdom of my faith. In order to be faithful, I need the power of God's grace to overcome any self-deception. I need to hold before my eyes, the covenant I made in baptismal: to seek for peace and justice and the dignity of every human being. I need to remember that it is better to err on the side of mercy than justice; that it is necessary to practice forgiveness in order to overcome feelings of hurt and revenge. I must use all reasonable means to make peace and to use force as the last resort. My intentions must be pure and must not originate from a place of fear. Whenever a person or nation decides to use force, the principles of just cause and just conduct must be honored.
What would the world look like today if we spent as much time, money, and energy on cultivating love for God and neighbor as we do on romantic love or on accumulating things? For Jesus, giving oneself wholly to God and loving one's neighbor was the main issue. This kind of love is known as agape: a sacrificial love that moves beyond the self and tribe.
The face of the emperor was engraved on the Roman coins. As such, they are disposable. But the face of God is engraved on our souls. We are not disposable! We are made in the image of God and thus belong to God. Let us keep this in mind this as we struggle with our fears and with the issues of a justified war. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Appendix: Justified War Theory
Principles regarding Just War Theory
I. Decision to Use Force
II. Rules of Engagement (i.e. Conduct of War)
I. Decision to Use Force
1. There must be a just cause. Usually a just cause is restricted to perpetrated acts of aggression.
2. A Legitimate Authority must declare the war (e.g. a small private army or terrorist cell within a nation would not qualify).
3. There must be a public declaration (i.e. lots of warning)
4. There must be “just intention.”
5. Proportionate Scope: The situation must be serious enough to use force and go to war.
6. It must be the last resort. All reasonable means must be tried first.
7. Finally, there must be a reasonable hope of success. To begin a war that can not be won, is a crime against humanity and an injustice to our troops and our citizens.
II. Just Conduct
1. Discrimination: Must discriminate between combatants and civilians.
2. Proportionality: The type and amount of force must be in proportion to the military target.
3. Principle of double effect:
a. Is the outcome good and acceptable?
b. The good effect (i.e. protecting democracy) outweighs the evil effect (i.e.killing innocent people). The evil effect is not a means to achieve the good effect.
| Updated 1/27/01 |
|