I set my remarks about the Constitution and religious freedom in the context one of Jesus’ most famous statements, read earlier. His statement about the relation of God’s people to the state, to governing authorities, is important. It is important because it can cause us to reflect on the most fundamental aspects of government and the relationship of religious faith to government and citizenship.

The context of the passage is familiar enough. At the time of Jesus, the Jewish people lived under Roman rule. Indeed, they had lived under Roman rule for some time. As part of its expansion, as part of its goal to dominate the known world, Rome launched a preemptive strike against the Jews. In the year 63 B.C. the Roman army marched into Judea. The Romans considered themselves to be enlightened rulers, and, in many ways, they were. The Jews were allowed many freedoms under Roman rule, including religious freedom. Rather than having to regard the emperor as a god and worthy of worship, which was the case in most of the Roman Empire, the Jews were allowed to continue to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were allowed to continue to go to the Temple in Jerusalem and to observe the worship practices and ethics of Judaism. However, in spite of this permissiveness, Rome was the occupying power and they did not let the Jews forget it.

Taxation continually reminded the Jews of their subservient position under Rome. In spite of the cultural leniency the Romans allowed the Jews, they were thorough in collecting taxes from them. Jews were not all of the same mind about living under Roman rule. Most did not like it. Even with the religious indulgence of the Romans, most Jews preferred independence; they did not like living under Roman control. They surely did not like sending their money to Rome. Some Jews were not that hostile to Rome; they endured Roman rule because of the security it provided the country. But even these people sometimes chafed under the burden of Roman taxation.

It was in the context of this dislike or, at best, grudging toleration, of Roman taxation that the passage under consideration today came to be. Many Jewish leaders had become alarmed about and opposed to Jesus. There were many reasons for that; they are scattered throughout the Gospels. In the passage at hand Matthew says it was the Pharisees and Herodians who came to Jesus. Luke, in his description of the event, says it was the scribes and chief priests. We can simply summarize to say that Jewish leaders were arrayed against him. They tried to snare him with a hard question. Luke describes their motivation: “so as to hand him over to the jurisdiction and authority of the governor.” The governor, of course, was a Roman official. These Jewish leaders began the conversation with this: “Teacher, we know that you are right in what you say and teach, and you show deference to no one, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.” As we say in Texas, they tried to “butter him up,” they tried to sweet talk him.

But then came the zinger. They asked him: “Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” In the RSV, the question is phrased: “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” The obvious answer to the question was “yes.” Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar? Of course it is lawful, we live under Roman rule and the law says that taxes shall be sent to Rome. But the Gospel writers tell us it was an entrapping question. The Jewish leaders knew that if he gave the obvious answer, it would enflame all those who hated living under Roman rule and especially hated paying Roman taxes. An affirmative answer might even spark a demonstration or a revolt, which the Romans would not tolerate. But if, by chance, he should answer negatively, that it was not lawful to pay Roman taxes, the Romans would regard him as a rebel, guilty of sedition. In either case, the answer would have adverse political implications and would get Jesus in trouble.

If the Jewish leaders knew the hook in their question, Jesus knew it, too. Matthew says Jesus was “aware of their malice.” Luke says he “perceived their craftiness.” A synonym for “craftiness” is “deceitfulness.” He knew what they were up to. So, he answered their question neither “yes” nor “no.” Rather he said, “Show me a coin used for the tax.” When they produced one, he asked them a question: “Whose head and whose title does it bear?” “Whose image do we see there on the coin?” Only one answer was available; the Emperor’s. Caesar’s likeness was on the coin. So Jesus said to them: “Then give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” or, in more traditional language, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Jesus’ adversaries were dumbfounded. He had wiggled out of their trap. Matthew says “they were amazed; and they left him and went away.” Luke gives a more fulsome explanation: “And they were not able in the presence of the people to trap him by what he said; and being amazed by his answer, they became silent.” And well they should be silent: he had escaped the horns of the dilemma they had presented. And well they should be silent, to ponder the meaning of what he had said to them.

We now need to do the same; ponder the meanings and implications of this saying. I suggest three. First, Jesus’ statement assumes the legitimacy of government. Some modern interpreters have distorted his saying to mean that government is illegitimate. He said nothing of the sort; he assumed that government is appropriate and necessary for society. However, he did not recommend a particular form of government. Although I am going to argue later that his statement is consistent with the American concept of separation of church and state, he did not recommend any particular form of government. Although he assumed the legitimacy of a monarchy, since that was the form of the Roman government, his statement is just as consistent with a democracy. If we modify his statement to say “give to the government that which is the government’s,” then it is clear that he meant that citizens are to live under the government, respect the government, and support the government, no matter what form of government it is. Of course, Jesus’ statements elsewhere about the necessity of love in human relationships and the value of human life mean that he opposed oppressive governments.

Second, Jesus approved the legitimacy of taxation and said that the citizen has the responsibility to pay taxes. This is one of Jesus’ “hard sayings,” for people do not like to pay taxes. They never have and probably never will. But in our own time there are many, including people in high places, who are so opposed to paying taxes that they would bring government close to bankruptcy. Jesus reminds the religious citizen that not only is government legitimate, but that citizens must pay the taxes that support the government: “give to the emperor that which is the emperor’s.” Again, Jesus’ ministry emphasized concern for the poor and the weak, so he would oppose the government that levied exorbitantly high taxes. He also would oppose the government that levied so few taxes that it provided no safety net for its most vulnerable citizens. But he insisted the Christian citizen meet his or her responsibility to pay taxes.

Third, this saying of Jesus suggests the concept that is so precious to Americans, that is part of our Constitution, the separation of church and state. To say, “give to the state that which is the state’s and give to God that which is God’s,” suggests that these are two distinct realms. The saying suggests that the two have separate authority and influence over life. The separation of church and state, with its corollary, religious freedom, is America’s most unique contribution to governing. It is contained in the first two clauses of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The background of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom is centuries of persecution produced by the union of church and state. In the belief that a union of religion and government created a more stable political order, empires and nations had established religions. An “establishment” is a formal, official relationship between religion and civil authority. But those people in the country who did not believe in the official religion were often persecuted, sometimes to death, because they were of the wrong religion. Sometimes people who actually professed the official religion, but were unorthodox in their beliefs, also were persecuted. Sometimes tribes or nations waged war against others in the name of religion, trying to impose the “correct” religion on those who believed differently. So, because of heresy trials, inquisitions, and religious warfare, state sponsored religion had left a bloody historical record.

The authors of the Constitution knew this history of suffering and oppression. They resolved that the same thing would not happen in the new nation they were creating. They avoided that result by preventing its beginnings. They wrote into the Bill of Rights a prohibition against establishment and a guarantee of religious liberty.

James Madison, widely regarded as the “father of the Constitution,” also addressed the issue of the relation of religion to government. He said that the relation of humans to God should be directed by reason and conviction only, not by the compulsion of the state. One’s conscience should be his or her guide in the area of religion, and the government has no authority over conscience. This right to be free from the power of government in the area of religion is an unalienable right, that is, it is an inherent right that cannot legitimately taken away by civil authority.

 

 

The no establishment principle means, among other things, that the state must not assume for itself the role of spiritual leader. By the word “state,” I refer to government at all levels; federal, state, county, and local. With that in mind, I repeat, the no establishment principle means that the state must not assume for itself the role of spiritual leader. Many argue these days that the founders intended for America to be a Christian nation, that America is a Christian nation or somehow a spiritual state. That argument is incorrect. The founders did not intend this to be a Christian nation. Although many of them were men of faith, the lessons of history told them that to combine the zeal of religious faith with the power of government would be harmful to the citizens of this new nation. The silence of the Constitution is the best indicator that they did not intend to create a Christian nation. The Constitution does not mention God, Jesus Christ, or Christianity. They did not establish Christianity as America’s official religion. But they did create a system that gave Christianity, in all its permutations, and every other religion, the maximum freedom to exist and flourish. America is the most religion-friendly nation in the world because of the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state and religious freedom.

If the state may not play God or spiritual leader of the people, it also may not support or finance existing religious organizations. The no establishment principle means that the government must be neutral in matters of religion, neither aiding nor hindering religion. The church and state are separate realms: “give to the emperor those things that are the emperors, give to God those things which are God’s.” It can safely be said that historically, because of the requirement that government should stay out of the affairs of religion, religion in this country has shown an energy and vitality virtually unknown in other countries. Religion in America has benefited enormously because of the separation of church and state.

The idea of no establishment, of noninvolvement by the government, means that one can believe whatever one wants, without interference from the government. But the authors of the Constitution knew freedom of belief would be a hollow freedom if one could not put those beliefs into action. It would be a mockery of freedom of belief if the state said to citizens, “You can believe what you want, so long as you don’t do anything about it.” So they also wrote the Free Exercise Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In this country, one can act out one’s religious beliefs, virtually without interference from the government. One can attend worship or not, one can support one or more ministries or not, one can evangelize or not, one can engage in religiously oriented social programs or not, all without government interference. One of the activities guaranteed American citizens by the Free Exercise Clause is the attempt to influence the government (at whatever level) from the perspective of their religion.

For reasons we do not have time to explore, there are many enemies of the separation of church and state in our country these days. One of the arguments they use to try to discredit separation of church and state is that it prevents religious people from contributing to the moral structure of the society. They contend that separation prohibits religious people from contributing to the national or local debates over moral issues, which results in what is sometimes called “the naked public square.” The public square is naked because separation of church and state forbids religious people from making their voices heard in public policy discussions.

That argument is absurd. It is just flat wrong. It is a slander of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment guarantees religious people the right to exercise their religion, which includes the right to try to influence the government on public policy issues, if they want to do that. The idea of religious freedom means that people of all religions, or none, have the right to inject their moral perspectives into the debate over public policy. In addition to the constitutional principle of free exercise of religion, the statement of Jesus we are examining today helps our understanding here. He said, “give to God those things that are God’s.” But as the creator, all things are God’s. As the Psalmist (24:1) said it: “The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world and those who live in it.” Consequently, people of faith have both the constitutional and theological right to address the public issues of the time. It may not have been to preserve the prophetic ministry of religious institutions that the Founders so wisely wrote separation of church and state into the Constitution, but that very separation enables religious institutions to perform this valuable function in American society.

 

 

It was the struggle for religious freedom that produced the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of religion involved freedom of the pulpit, the freedom to express controversial or even forbidden religious ideas openly. Free speech was the result.

Freedom of the press followed freedom of religion. First in England and then in the colonies, unorthodox religious groups were not allowed to print religious tracts or even Bibles. But when religious freedom was won, so was the freedom to print religious literature without government supervision. This expanded into political and secular publication, as well.

 

Freedom of assembly was the result of minority or unapproved religious groups gaining the freedom to worship openly. Once freedom of worship was achieved, the freedom to gather in other kinds of meeting was not far behind.

 

 

---